IRAC案例分析方法

1、The Sectio ns of an IRACedit IssueThe IRAC starts with a statement of the issue or question at hand. In the issue section ofan 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 an

2、IRAC is the stateme nt of the rules pertinent in decid ing the issuestated. Rules in amon law jurisdicti on derive fromcourt case precedent and statute . The information included in the rules secti on depends heavilyon the sp ecificity of the questi on at han d. If the question states a specific jur

3、isdictionthen it is proper to include rules sp ecific to that jurisdicti on. Ano ther dist in cti onofte n made in the rule section is a clear 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 ee

4、ds to be a legal summary of all the rules used inthe an alysis and is ofte n writte n in a manner which parap hrases or otherwise an alyticallyconden ses in formatio n into app licable rules.edit Application/AnalysisThe application/ analysis section of an IRAC applies the rules developedin the rules

5、 sect ion to the sp ecific 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 imp orta nt in this sect ion to apply the rules to the facts of thecase

6、 and explain or argue why a p articular rule app lies or does not apply in the case presented.The application/analysissectionis the most imp orta nt secti on of an IRAC because it devel ops the an swer to the issue athand.edit ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRAC directlyanswers the question

7、presentedin the issue secti on of the IRAC. It is imp orta nt for the methodology of the IRAC that thecon clusi on sect ion of the IRAC not in troduce any new rules or an alysis. This sect ionrestates the issue and pro vides the final an swer.edit CriticismIRAC has many proponents and opponen ts. Th

8、e main argume nts of the proponents of the IRACmethodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the app licati on of a formula that helps organize the legal an alysis. Since an orga ni zed legal an alysis is easier to follow and reduceserrors inreasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRAC i

9、s a very useful tool. The opponentsof the IRAC fall into two categories.The first category are those who object to using an IRAC because of its strict and un wieldyformat. Most of these critics offer an alter native version of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR,CREACTREACCCRuPACISAACand ILAC. Each new ite

10、rati on is supp osed to cure the defects of theIRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format. A very good example of suchan alter native format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and con gruity. Theyargue this based upon the rep etiti on of the con clusi on in the begi

11、nning and the end whichis said to leave no doubt as to the final an swer and offer con gruity to the overall reasonin g. It also has an explan ati on of the rules sect ion which helps deli neate rules intostati ng the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity.The sec ond category of critics

12、 of the IRAC say that it tends to lead to overwrit ing, andoversi mp lify ing the pl exity of proper legal an alysis.This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, wellresearched essay that is writte n in a format most amiable to the writer. The importance ofan ope

13、n format amiable to the writer is suppo sed to let the legal reas oners concen trateon exp ress ing their argume nt to the best of their abilities in stead of concen trat ingon adheri ng to a strict format that reduces this focus.edit An Example IRACA gen eric IRACo n a law school examwould con sist

14、 of a n an swer to a questi on. The following exa mple dem on strates a gen eric IRAC as an an swer to a questi on.Person A walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread. He then stuffs the breadben eath his jacket. A security atte ndant sees him and follows him to the cash register. Perso

15、nA passes through without stopping to pay for anything. The security atte ndant stops him atthe gate. He detains person A while he interrogateshim. Person A is unresponsive anduncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the securityatte ndant. Person A is held

16、for a p eriod of two hours at the end of which it is found thathe had actually put the loafof bread back and was not steali ng. Person A sues the grocery store for false imprisonment .Would person A p revail in court?IssueThe issue here is whether person A could p revail in court by alleg ing that h

17、e wasfalsely imprison ed.RulesMost jurisdicti ons in the Un ited States allow recovery for false imprisonment . Thecourts look at two elements in determ ining whether a person has bee n falsely imprisoned, namely just cause and authority. In looking at the element of just cause, courtsfurther an aly

18、ze two factors: reas on able suspicion and the environment in which theactions take place.If a person sus pects that he is being dep rived of prop erty legally attached to himand he can show that his sus picions are reas on able the n he is said to have a reason able sus picion. Courts also look at

19、whether the activity in question took placein an environment where stealing is mon. Crowded public places and shops are con sideredto be more justifiable p laces where a person could have just cause for reas on ablesus pici on in p aris on to p rivate prop erty or sp arsely popu lated areas.In looki

20、ng at the other element of authority, the courts tend to favor people directlycharged with han dli ng security as people with the authority to deta in a person inp aris on to p rivate in dividuals. The courts have made exce pti ons in the favor ofthe person con duct ing the dete nti on if he is a sh

21、opkeeper. This special privilegeis called the shopkeepersprivilege . In general the element of authority is usually seen as one part of a twopart legal justificati on for legally justifiable dete nti on. For exa mple in casesinv olvi ngdetention by an officer of the law, courts have ruled that the o

22、fficer has to have bothjust cause and authority. Authority in itself is not eno ugh. The same reas oning applies to all detaining individuals.Exceptions are made in the case wherea person of authority has to con duct an in vestigati onwith justcause and courts usually grant a reas on able amount of

23、time in dete nti on for thispurpo se. Here the reas on able amount of time a person can be kept in dete ntio n isdirectly related to thecircumsta nces un der which the dete ntio n takes pl ace.App licati on/An alysisPerson A was con duct ing his activity in a crowded pl ace that happened to be a gro

24、cerystore. He was further deta ined by a security atte ndant. The security atte ndanthadsee n him p ickup a loaf of bread and walk p ast the cash register without paying. The security attendant deta ined him un til he discovered that no theft had take n p lace. Person A wassubseque ntly released upo

25、n this determ in ati on of fact.A court look ing at these facts would try to apply the two eleme nts of false imprisonment.The first eleme nt of false imprisonment is just cause. The first factor of just causeis reas on able sus picion. The security atte ndant saw person A pick up a loaf of breadand

26、 stuff it ben eath his jacket. This is an unmonaction as most grocery shop customersusually do not hide p roduce un der their personal bel ongin gs. The security atte ndant,therefore, has reas on able sus picion because a reas on able person in his p lace wouldhave also con sidered this actio n to b

27、e sus picious. Person A further walks by thecash register without paying. The security atte ndant has already see n person A hiding the bread un der his jacket and hon estly believes that person A is still in p ossession of the loaf of bread. A reas on able person in the security atte ndan ts stead

28、wouldarguably act to stop person A. Thus, this seems to satisfy the first factor of the element of just cause, reas on able sus picion.The sec ond factor of the eleme nt of just cause is the en vir onment. The activitytakes p lace in a grocery store. A grocery store is usually a p lace where sho pli

29、ftersand other thieves op erate regularly. This reduces the burde n of just cause pl acedon the person p erform ing the dete ntio n. The security attendant has to be unusuallyvigilantand suspiciousof a persons motive because of his location.This then seemsto satisfy the sec ond factor of the eleme n

30、t of just cause, en vir onment.The sec ond eleme nt of false imprisonment is authority. The person performing thedetention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. He is the person chargedwith securi ng the grocery store and its prop erty. The security atte ndant sees personA put the loa

31、f of bread undern eath his coat and walk through the checkout without paying.The security attendant now has to act because he has been charged with the securityof the store and he has just cause. The security atte ndant p erforms the inv estigation after he puts person A in detention and it takes two hours. Twohours might seemlikean un reas on able amount of time but give n the fact that person A was unrespon siveand uncoop erative it seems to be reas on able. It also seems as if the security attendant was doing his due diligenee as he releases perso