IRAC案例分析方法

1、精品文档The Sectio ns of an IRACedit IssueThe IRAC starts with a statement of the issue or question at hand. In the issue sectionof an IRACit is important to state exactly what the question of law is.edit RulesThe rules sect ion of an IRAC follows the stateme nt of the issue at hand.The rule secti on of

2、 an IRAC is the stateme nt of the rules pert inent in deciding theissue stated. Rules in a commoriaw jurisdictionderive fromcourt case precede nt and statute . The in formatio n in cluded in the rules sectiondepends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. If the question states aspecific

3、jurisdictionthen it is proper to includerules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made in the rule section is aclear delineation of rules that are inholding andrules that are obiter dicta . This helps make a correct legal analysisofthe issue at hand. The rules sect ion n eeds to

4、 be a legal summary of all the rules usedin the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically conden ses in formatio n into applicable rules.edit Application/AnalysisThe application/ analysis section of an IRAC applies the rules developedin the rules sect ion

5、to the specific facts of the issue at hand. This secti on uses on lythe rules stated in the rules sect ion of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules statedincludingexceptions as is requiredby the an alysis. It is importa nt in this sect ion to apply the rules to the facts of the caseand expla i

6、n or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the casepresented. The application/analysissectionis the most importa nt secti on of an IRAC because it develops the an swer to the issueat hand.edit ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRAC directlyanswers the question presentedin the

7、 issue secti on of the IRAC. It is importa nt for the methodology of the IRAC thatthe con clusi on sect ion of the IRAC not in troduce any new rules or an alysis. Thissect ion restates the issue and provides the final an swer.精品文档edit CriticismIRAC has many prop onents and opp onen ts. The main argu

8、me nts of the proponentsof the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formulathat helps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal analysis is easier tofollow and reduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRACis a very useful to

9、ol. The opp onents of the IRAC fall in to two categories.The first category are those who object to using an IRAC because of its strict and unwieldy format. Most of these critics offer an alter native version of the IRAC such asMIRAT, IDAR, CREACTREACCCRuPACISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration issuppo

10、sed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom dependingupon the format. A very good example of such an alter native format is the CREACwhich is said to offer more clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon therepetition of the con clusi on in the begi nning and the end wh

11、ich is said to leave nodoubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning. It also has anexpla nati on of the rules sect ion which helps deli neate rules into stating the rules andexplaining the rules for further clarity.The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it t

12、ends to lead to overwriting,and oversimplifyingthe complexity of proper legal analysis.This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, wellresearched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer. Theimportance of an open format amiable to the writer

13、is supposed to let the legal reasoners concen trate on express ing their argume nt to the best of their abilities in steadof concen trat ing on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus.edit An Example IRACA gen eric IRACo n a law school examwould con sist of a n an swer to a questi on. Th

14、efollow ing example dem on strates a gen eric IRAC as an an swer to a questi on.Pers on A walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread. He the n stuffs thebread ben eath his jacket. A security atte ndant sees him and follows him to the cashregister.Pers on A passes through without stopp i

15、ng topay for anything. The security attendant stops him at the gate. Hedeta ins pers on A while he in terrogateshim. Pers on A is un resp on sive anduncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by thesecurity atte ndant. Pers on A is held for a period of two hours

16、at the end of which it isfound that he had actually put the loaf of bread back and was not steali ng. Pers on Asues the grocery store for false impris onment. Would pers on A prevail in court?精品文档IssueThe issue here is whether pers on A could prevail in court by alleg ing that hewas falsely impris o

17、n ed.RulesMost jurisdictions in the United States allow recovery for false impris onment .The courts look at two eleme nts in determ ining whether a pers on has bee nfalsely impris on ed, namely just cause and authority. In looking at the elementof just cause, courts further an alyze two factors: re

18、as on able suspicion andthe environment in which the actions take place.If a pers on suspects that he is being deprived of property legally attached tohim and he can show that his suspici ons are reas on able the n he is said tohave a reas on able suspici on. Courts also look at whether the activity

19、 inquestion took place in an en vir onment where steali ng is com mon. Crowdedpublic places and shops are considered to be more justifiable places where apers on could have just cause for reas on able suspici on in comparison toprivate property or sparsely populated areas.In looking at the other ele

20、ment of authority, the courts tend to favor peopledirectly charged with han dli ng security as people with the authority to detain aperson in comparison to private individuals. The courts have made exceptionsin the favor of the pers on con duct ing the dete nti on if he is a shopkeeper.This special

21、privilege is called the shopkeepers privilege . In general theelement of authority is usually seen as one part of a two part legal justificationfor legally justifiable detention. For example in cases involving detention by anofficer of the law, courts have ruled that the officer has to have both jus

22、t causeand authority. Authority in itself is not eno ugh. The same reas oning applies toalldeta ining in dividuals. Excepti ons are made inthe case wherea pers on of authority has to con duct an in vestigati on with just cause andcourts usually grant a reas on able amount of time in dete nti on for

23、thispurpose. Here the reas on able amount of time a person can be kept indetention is directly related to the circumsta nces un der which the dete ntio ntakes place.Applicati on/An alysisPers on A was con duct ing his activity in a crowded place that happe ned to bea grocery store. He was further de

24、ta ined by a security atte ndant.Thesecurity atte ndant had see nhim pickup a loaf of bread and walk past the cash register without paying. The security精品文档attendant detained him until he discovered that no theft had take n place. Person A was subseque ntly released upon this determ in ati on of fac

25、t.A court looking at these facts would try to apply the two eleme nts of falseimpris onment. The first eleme nt of false imprisonment is just cause. The firstfactor of just cause is reas on able suspici on. The security atte ndant saw person A pick up a loaf of bread and stuff it ben eath his jacket

26、. This is an un common actio n as most grocery shop customers usually do not hide produceunder their personal belongings. The security atte ndant, therefore, has reason able suspici on because a reas on able pers on in his place would have alsocon sidered this actio n to be suspicious. Pers on A fur

27、ther walks by the cashregister without pay ing. The security atte ndant has already see n pers on Ahid ing the bread un der his jacket and hon estly believes that pers on A is stillin possessi on of the loaf of bread. A reas on able pers on in the security attendan ts steadwould arguably act to stop

28、 pers on A. Thus, this seems to satisfy the first factorof the eleme nt of just cause, reas on able suspici on.The sec ond factor of the eleme nt of just cause is the en vir onment. Theactivity takes place in a grocery store. A grocery store is usually a place whereshoplifters and other thieves oper

29、ate regularly. This reduces the burde n of justcause placed on the pers on perform ing the dete ntio n. The security attendanthas to be unusually vigilant and suspicious of a persons motive because of hislocation.This then seemsto satisfy the sec ond factor of the eleme nt of just cause,en vir onmen

30、t.The sec ond eleme nt of false impris onment is authority. The personperforming the detention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. Heis the pers on charged with securi ng the grocery store and its property. Thesecurity atte ndant sees pers on A put the loaf of bread undern eath his

31、coatand walk through the checkout without pay ing. The security attendant now hasto act because he has been charged with the security of the store and he hasjust cause. The security atte ndant performs the inv estigati on after he putspers on A in detention and it takes two hours. Twohours might seemlike an unreas on able amount of time but give n the fact that pers on A was un resp onsive and un cooperative it seems to be reas on able. It also seems as if thesecurity atte ndant was doing his due diligenee as he releases person