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 ofan IRACit 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 IRAC

2、 is the statement of the rules pertinent in deciding the issuestated. Rules in a commonaw jurisdiction derive from court case precedent and statute .The information included in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of thequestion at hand. If the question states a specific jurisdiction

3、 then 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 analysis of the issue at hand.The rules section needs to be a legal

4、summary of all the rules used in the analysis and isoften written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condensesinformation into applicable rules.edit Application/AnalysisThe application / analysis section of an IRAC applies the rules developed in the rulessection to the specific

5、facts of the issue at hand. This section uses only the rules stated inthe rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptionsas is required by the analysis. It is important in this section to apply the rules to the factsof the case and explain or argue why a part

6、icular rule applies or does not apply in the casepresented. The application/analysis section is the most important section of an IRACbecause it develops the answer to the issue at hand.edit ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the question presented in the issuesection of the

7、 IRAC. It is important for the methodology ofthe 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 proponents of theIRAC me

8、thodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula thathelps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow andreduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRACis a very usefultool. The opponents of the IRAC fall into

9、 two categories.The first category are those who object to using an IRAC because of its strict andunwieldy format. Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC such asMIRAT, IDAR, CREACTREACCCRuPACISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration issupposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and off

10、er more or less freedom depending uponthe format. A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which issaid to offer more clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon the repetition of theconclusion in the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the finalan

11、swer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning. It also has an explanation of the rulessection which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules forfurther clarity.The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends to lead to overwriting, andoversimplifying the

12、 complexity of proper legal analysis. This group believes that a goodlegal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well researched essay that is written in aformat most amiable to the writer. The importance of an open format amiable to thewriter is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate

13、 on expressing their argument tothe best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format thatreduces this focus.edit An Example IRACA generic IRACon a law school examwould consist of an answer to a question. Thefollowing example demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to

14、a question.Person A walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread. He then stuffs the breadbeneath 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 security attendantstops him at the gate. He de

15、tains person A while he interrogates him. Person A isunresponsive and uncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges beingleveled at him by the security attendant. Person A is held for a period of two hours at theend of which it is found that he had actually put the loaf of bread back an

16、d was notstealing. Person A sues the grocery store for false imprisonment . Would person A prevailin court?IssueThe issue here is whether person A could prevail in court by alleging that he wasfalsely imprisoned.RulesMost jurisdictions in the United States allow recovery for false imprisonment .The

17、courts look at two elements in determining whether a person has been falselyimprisoned, namely just cause and authority. In looking at the element of justcause, courts further analyze two factors: reasonable suspicion and theenvironment in which the actions take place.If a person suspects that he is

18、 being deprived of property legally attached to himand he can show that his suspicions are reasonable then he is said to have areasonable suspicion. Courts also look at whether the activity in question tookplace in an environment where stealing is common. Crowded public places andshops are considere

19、d to be more justifiableplaceswhere a person could have just cause for reasonable suspicion in comparison toprivate property or sparsely populated areas.In looking at the other element of authority, the courts tend to favor peopledirectly charged with handling security as people with the authority t

20、o detain aperson in comparison to private individuals. The courts have made exceptions inthe favor of the person conducting the detention if he is a shopkeeper. This specialprivilege is called the shopkeepers privilege . In general the element of authorityis usually seen as one part of a two part le

21、gal justification for legally justifiabledetention. 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 enough. The same reasoning applies to alldetaining individuals. Exceptions are

22、 made in the case where a person of authorityhas to conduct an investigation with just cause and courts usually grant areasonable amount of time in detention for this purpose. Here the reasonableamount of time a person can be kept in detention is directly related to thecircumstances under which the

23、detention takes place.Application/AnalysisPerson A was conducting his activity in a crowded place that happened to be agrocery store. He was further detained by a security attendant. The securityattendant had seen him pick up a loaf of bread and walk past the cash registerwithout paying. The securit

24、y attendant detained him until he discovered that notheft had taken place. Person A was subsequently released upon thisdetermination of fact.A court looking at these facts would try to apply the two elements of falseimprisonment. The first element of false imprisonment is just cause. The firstfactor

25、 of just cause is reasonable suspicion. The security attendant saw person Apick up a loaf of bread and stuff it beneath his jacket. This is an uncommon actionas most grocery shop customers usually do not hide produce under their personalbelongings. The security attendant, therefore, has reasonable s

26、uspicion because areasonable person in his place would have also considered this action to besuspicious. Person A further walks by the cash register without paying. Thesecurity attendant has already seen person A hiding the bread under his jacket andhonestly believes that person A is still in posses

27、sion of the loaf of bread. Areasonable person in the security attendants stead would arguably act to stopperson A. Thus, this seems to satisfy the first factor of the element of just cause,reasonable suspicion.The second factor of the element of just cause is the environment. The activitytakes place

28、 in a grocery store. A grocery store is usually a place where shopliftersand other thieves operate regularly. This reduces the burden of just cause placedon the person performing the detention. The security attendant has to be unusuallyvigilant and suspicious of a persons motive because of his locat

29、ion. This thenseems to satisfy the second factor of the element of just cause,environment.The second element of false imprisonment is authority. The person performing thedetention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. He is the personcharged with securing the grocery store and its pro

30、perty. The security attendantsees person A put the loaf of bread underneath his coat and walk through thecheckout without paying. The security attendant now has to act because he hasbeen charged with the security of the store and he has just cause. The securityattendant performs the investigation after he puts person A in detention and ittakes two hours. Twohours might seemlike an unreasonable amount of time butgiven the fact that person A was unresponsive and uncooperative it seems to bereasonable. It also seems as if the security attendant was doing his due diligence ashe releases perso