IRAC案例分析方法

1、iFFF-r-F-FFF F-=. FXF 八扌彳-FFFFF-* - F.-F- - -= * XFXF* The Sectio ns of an IRACedit IssueThe IRAC starts with a statement of the issue or question at hand. In the issue section of an IRACit is important to state exactly what the question of law is.edit RulesThe rules sect ion of an IRAC follows the

2、stateme nt of the issue at hand.The rule secti on of an IRAC is the stateme nt of the rules pert inent in deciding the issue stated. Rules in a commoriaw jurisdictionderive fromcourt case precede nt and statute . The in formatio n in cluded in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of

3、the question at hand. If the question states a specific jurisdictionthen it is proper to includerules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often 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

4、analysisofthe issue at hand. The rules sect ion n eeds to be a legal summary of all the rules used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise an alytically conden ses in formatio n into applicable rules.edit Application/AnalysisThe application / analysis section

5、of an IRAC applies the rules developed in the rules sect ion to the specific facts of the issue at hand. This secti on uses on ly the rules stated in the rules sect ion of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated includingexceptions as is requiredby the an alysis. It is importa nt in this

6、sect ion to apply the rules to the facts of the case and expla in or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented. The application/analysissectionis the most importa nt secti on of an IRAC because it develops the an swer to the issue at hand.edit ConclusionThe conclusi

7、on section of an IRAC directlyanswers the question presentedin the issue secti on of the IRAC. It is importa nt for the methodology of-FFF-r-FFFFFF-hF-F -. FXF 八彳-FFFFF-Fr- -FXF* the IRAC that the con clusi on sect ion of the IRAC not in troduce any new rules or an alysis. This sect ion restates the

8、 issue and provides the final an swer.edit CriticismIRAC has many prop onents and opp onen ts. The main argume nts of the proponents of the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal analysis is eas

9、ier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool. 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 un wieldy format. Most of these critics offer an

10、 alter native version of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREACTREACCCRuPACISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format. A very good example of such an alter native format is the CREAC which is said to offer more

11、 clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon the repetition of the con clusi on in the begi nning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning. It also has an expla nati on of the rules sect ion which helps deli neate rules int

12、o stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity.The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends to lead to overwriting,and oversimplifyingthe complexity of proper legal analysis.This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well resea

13、rched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer. The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reas oners concen trate on express ing their argume nt to the best of their abilities in stead of concen trat ing on adhering to a strict format tha

14、t 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. The follow 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 the bread b

15、en eath his jacket. A security atte ndant sees him and follows him to the cash register.Pers on A passes through without stopp ingto pay 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 fa

16、ct downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the security atte ndant. Pers on A is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is found that he had actually put the loafof bread back and was not steali ng. Pers on A sues the grocery store for false impris onment. Would pers

17、on A prevail in court?IssueThe issue here is whether pers on A could prevail in court by alleg ing that he was falsely impris on 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 n false

18、ly 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 environment 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 sh

19、ow 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 an 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 co

20、uld 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 courts tend to favor people directly charged with han dli ng security as people with the authority to detain a person in comparison to priva

21、te 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 the shopkeepers privilege . In general the element of authority is usually seen as one part of a two part legal justification for legally j

22、ustifiable 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 authority. Authority in itself is not eno ugh. The same reas oning applies to all护89- W ! W -W -W W V W K T fT IJ *V*V W ， WV T - T T W -M-detai

23、ning individuals.Exceptions are made in the case wherea pers on of authority has to con duct an in vestigati on with just cause and courts usually grant a reas on able amount of time in dete nti on for this purpose. Here the reas on able amount of time a person can be kept in detention is directly r

24、elated to the circumsta nces un der which the dete ntio n takes place.Applicati on/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 security atte ndant.The security atte ndant hadsee n him pickup a loaf of bread a

25、nd 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 at these facts would try to apply the two eleme nts of false impris onment. T

26、he 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 saw pers on A pick up a loaf of bread and stuff it ben eath his jacket. This is an un com mon actio n as most grocery shop customers usually do not hide produce u

27、nder 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 actio n to be suspicious. Pers on A further walks by the cash register without pay ing. The security atte ndant has already see

28、 n pers on A hid ing 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 able pers on in thesecurity atte ndan ts steadwould arguably act to stop pers on A. Thus, this seems to satisfy the first factor of the eleme nt of just caus

29、e, 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 regularly. This reduces the burde n of just cause placed on the pers on perfor

30、m ing the dete ntio n. The security attendant has to be unusually vigilant and suspicious of a persons motive because of his location.This then seemsto satisfy the sec ond factor of the eleme nt of just cause,en vir onment.The sec ond eleme nt of false impris onment is authority. The person performi

31、ng the detention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. He is the pers on charged with securi ng the grocery store and its property. The security atte ndant sees pers on A put the loaf of bread undern eath his coat and walk through the checkout without pay ing. The security attendant n

32、ow 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 wasdoing his due diligeneeas he