IRAC案例分析方法

1、The Sections of an IRACedit IssueThe IRAC starts with a statement of the issue or question at hand. In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is.edit RulesThe rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue at hand. The rule section of an I

2、RAC is the statement of the rules pertinent in deciding the issue stated. Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case precedent and statute. The information included in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. If the question states a specific juris

3、diction then it is proper to include rules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta. This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand. The rules section needs to

4、be a legal summary of all the rules used in the analysis and is often written in a mannerwhich paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules.edit Application/AnalysisThe application / analysis section of an IRAC applies the rules developed in the rules section to

5、the specific facts of the issue at hand. This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis. It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or

6、argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented. The application/analysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand.edit ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the question presented in the i

7、ssue section of the IRAC. It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis. This section restates the issue and provides the final answer.edit CriticismIRAC has many proponents and opponents. The main arguments of the pro

8、ponents of the IRACmethodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool. The oppone

9、nts of the IRAC fall into 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 alternative version of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREAC,TREACCC, RuPAC,ISAACand ILAC. Each new iteration is supposed to cure

10、the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format. A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in the beginning and the end which is said t

11、o leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning. It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity.The second category of critics of the IRACsay that it tends to lead to

12、 overwriting, and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis. This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer. The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is suppose

13、d to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus.edit An Example IRACA generic IRAC on a law school exam would consist of an answer to a question. The following example

14、 demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to a question.Person A walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread. He then stuffs the bread beneath his jacket. A security attendant sees him and follows him to the cash register. Person A passes through without stopping to pay for anything.The

15、security attendant stops him at the gate. He detains person A while he interrogates him. Person A is unresponsive and uncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the security attendant. Person A is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is found

16、that he had actually put the loaf of bread back and was not steali ng. Pers on A sues the grocery store for false impris onment. Would pers on A prevail in court?IssueThe issue here is whether pers on A could prevail in court by allegi ng that he was falsely impris on ed.RulesMost jurisdictions in t

17、he United States allow recovery for false impris onment. The courts look at two eleme nts in determ ining whether a pers on has bee n falsely impris on ed, namely just cause and authority. In looking at the element of just cause, courts further an alyze two factors: reas on able suspicion and the en

18、vironment in which the actions take place.If a pers on suspects that he is being deprived of property legally attached to him and he can show that his suspici ons are reas on able the n he is said to have a reas on able suspici on. Courts also look at whether the activity in question took place in a

19、n en vir onment where steali ng is com mon. Crowded public places and shops are considered to be more justifiable places where a pers on could have just cause for reas on able suspici on in comparison to private property or sparsely populated areas.In looking at the other element of authority, the c

20、ourts tend to favor people directly charged with handling security as people with the authority to detain a person in comparison to private individuals. The courts have made exceptions in the favor of the pers on con duct ing the dete nti on if he is a shopkeeper. This special privilege is called th

21、e shopkeepers privilege. In general the element of authority is usually seen as one part of a two part legal justification for legally justifiable detention. For example in cases involving detention by an officer of the law, courts have ruled that the officer has to have both just cause and authorit

22、y. Authority in itself is not eno ugh. The same reas oning applies to alldetaining individuals. Exceptionsare made in the case wherea pers on of authority has to con duct an inv estigatio nwith justcause and courts usually grant a reas on able amount of time in dete nti on for this purpose. Here the

23、 reas on able amount of time a person can be kept in detention is directly related to the circumsta nces un der which the dete nti on takes place.Applicatio n/An alysisPers on A was con duct ing his activity in a crowded place that happe ned to be a grocery store. He was further deta ined by a secur

24、ity atte ndant. Thesecurity atte ndant had see nhim pickup a loaf of bread and walk past the cash register without paying. The security attendant detained him until he discovered that no theft had take n place. Pers on A was subseque ntly released upon this determ in ati on of fact.A court looking a

25、t these facts would try to apply the two eleme nts of false impris onment. The first eleme nt of false imprisonment is just cause. The first factor of just cause is reas on able suspici on. The security atte ndant sawpers on Apick up a loaf of bread and stuff it ben eath his jacket. This is an un co

26、m mon acti on as most grocery shop customers usually do not hide produce under their personal belongings. The security atte ndant, therefore, has reas on able suspici on because a reas on able pers on in his place would have also con sidered this acti on to be suspicious. Pers on A further walks by

27、the cash register without pay ing. The security atte ndant has already see n pers on A hidi ng the bread un der his jacket and hon estly believes that pers on A is still in possessi on of the loaf of bread. A reas on ablepers on in the security atte ndan ts steadwould arguably act to stop pers on A.

28、 Thus, this seems to satisfy the first factor of 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. The activity takes place in a grocery store. A grocery store is usually a place where shoplifters and other thieves operate regu

29、larly. This reduces the burde n of just cause placed on the pers on perform ing the dete nti on. Thesecurity attendant has to be unusually vigilantand suspiciousof a persons motive because of his location. This then seems to satisfy the sec ond factor of the eleme nt of just cause, en vir onment.The

30、 sec ond eleme nt of false impris onment is authority. The person performing the detention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. He is the person charged with securing the grocery store and its property. The security atte ndant sees pers on A put the loaf of bread undern eath his coat

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