《IRAC案例分析方法.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《IRAC案例分析方法.pdf（5页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、The Sections of an IRACThe Sections of an IRAC editedit Issue IssueThe IRAC starts with a statement of the issue or question at hand.In theissue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the questionof law is.editedit Rules RulesThe rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of th
2、e issue at hand.The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules pertinent indeciding the issue stated.Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive fromcourt case precedent and statute.The information included in the rulessection depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand.Ifthe
3、 question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to includerules specific to that jurisdiction.Another distinction often made inthe rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are in holding andrules that areobiter dicta.This helps make a correct legal analysisofthe issue at hand.The
4、 rules section needs to be a legal summary of allthe rules used in the analysis and is often written in a manner whichparaphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information intoapplicable rules.editedit Application/Analysis Application/AnalysisThe application/analysis section of an IRAC applies
5、 the rules developedin the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand.Thissection uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC andusually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is requiredby the analysis.It is important in this section to apply the rules t
6、othe facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule appliesor does not apply in the case presented.The application/analysis sectionis the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answerto the issue at hand.editedit Conclusion ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRAC
7、 directly answers the question presentedin the issue section of the IRAC.It is important for the methodology ofthe IRAC that the conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any newrules or analysis.This section restates the issue and provides the finalanswer.editedit Criticism CriticismIRAC has man
8、y proponents and opponents.The main arguments of theproponents of the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to theapplication of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis.Sincean organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors inreasoning,therefore,the proponents arg
9、ue that the IRAC is a very usefultool.The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categories.The first category are those who object to using an IRAC because of itsstrict and unwieldy format.Most of these critics offer an alternativeversion of the IRAC such as MIRAT,IDAR,CREAC,TREACC,CRuPAC,ISAAC andILA
10、C.Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC andoffer more or less freedom depending upon the format.A very good exampleof such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer moreclarity and congruity.They argue this based upon the repetition of theconclusion in the be
11、ginning and the end which is said to leave no doubtas to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning.Italso has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rulesinto stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity.The second category of critics of the I
12、RAC say that it tends to lead tooverwriting,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 amiableto the writer.The importance of an open format amiable
13、 to the writer issupposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing theirargument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating onadhering to a strict format that reduces this focus.editedit An Example IRAC An Example IRACA generic IRAC on a law school exam would consist of an a
14、nswer to a question.The following example demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to aquestion.Person A walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread.He thenstuffs the bread beneath his jacket.A security attendant sees him andfollows him to the cash register.Person A passes through withou
15、t stoppingto pay for anything.The security attendant stops him at the gate.Hedetains person A while he interrogates him.Person A is unresponsive anduncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveledat him by the security attendant.Person A is held for a period of twohours at th
16、e end of which it is found that he had actually put the loafof bread back and was not stealing.Person A sues the grocery store forfalse imprisonment.Would person A prevail in court?IssueIssueThe issue here is whether person A could prevail in court byalleging that he was falsely imprisoned.RulesRule
17、sMost jurisdictions in the United States allow recovery forfalse imprisonment.The courts look at two elements indetermining whether a person has been falsely imprisoned,namely just cause and authority.In looking at the element ofjust cause,courts further analyze two factors:reasonablesuspicion and t
18、he environment in which the actions take place.If a person suspects that he is being deprived of propertylegally attached to him and he can show that his suspicionsare reasonable then he is said to have a reasonable suspicion.Courts also look at whether the activity in question took placein an envir
19、onment where stealing is common.Crowded publicplaces and shops are considered to be more justifiable placeswhere a person could have just cause for reasonable suspicionin comparison to private property or sparsely populated areas.In looking at the other element of authority,the courts tendto favor p
20、eople directly charged with handling security aspeople with the authority to detain a person in comparison toprivate individuals.The courts have made exceptions in thefavor of the person conducting the detention if he is ashopkeeper.This special privilege is called the shopkeepersprivilege.In genera
21、l the element of authority is usually seenas one part of a two part legal justification for legallyjustifiable detention.For example in cases involvingdetention by an officer of the law,courts have ruled that theofficer has to have both just cause and authority.Authorityin itself is not enough.The s
22、ame reasoning applies to alldetaining individuals.Exceptions are made inthe case wherea person of authority has to conduct an investigation with justcause and courts usually grant a reasonable amount of time indetention for this purpose.Here the reasonable amount of timea person can be kept in deten
23、tion is directly related to thecircumstances under which the detention takes place.Application/AnalysisPerson A was conducting his activity in a crowded place thathappened to be a grocery store.He was further detained by asecurity attendant.The security attendant hadseen him pickup a loaf of bread a
24、nd walk past the cash register withoutpaying.The security attendant detained him until hediscovered that no theft had taken place.Person A wassubsequently released upon this determination of fact.A court looking at these facts would try to apply the twoelements of false imprisonment.The first elemen
25、t of falseimprisonment is just cause.The first factor of just cause isreasonable suspicion.The security attendant saw person A pickup a loaf of bread and stuff it beneath his jacket.This isan uncommon action as most grocery shop customers usually donot hide produce under their personal belongings.Th
26、e securityattendant,therefore,has reasonable suspicion because areasonable person in his place would have also considered thisaction to be suspicious.Person A further walks by the cashregister without paying.The security attendant has alreadyseen person A hiding the bread under his jacket and honest
27、lybelieves that person A is still in possession of the loaf ofbread.A reasonable person in thesecurity attendants steadwould arguably act to stop person A.Thus,this seems tosatisfy the first factor of the element of just cause,reasonable suspicion.The second factor of the element of just cause is th
28、eenvironment.The activity takes place in a grocery store.Agrocery store is usually a place where shoplifters and otherthieves operate regularly.This reduces the burden of justcause placed on the person performing the detention.Thesecurity attendant has to be unusually vigilant and suspiciousof a per
29、sons motive because of his location.This then seemsto satisfy the second factor of the element of just cause,environment.The second element of false imprisonment is authority.Theperson performing the detention of A is the security attendantof the grocery store.He is the person charged with securingt
30、he grocery store and its property.The security attendantsees person A put the loaf of bread underneath his coat andwalk through the checkout without paying.The securityattendant now has to act because he has been charged with thesecurity of the store and he has just cause.The securityattendant perfo
31、rms the investigation after he puts person Ain detention and it takes two hours.Two hours might seem likean unreasonable amount of time but given the fact that personA was unresponsive and uncooperative it seems to bereasonable.It also seems as if the security attendant wasdoing his due diligence as
32、 he releases person A as soon as thefacts are established and it is shown that person A was notstealing the loaf of bread.Finally we have to look at the fact that since the activitytook place in a grocery store,the shopkeepers privilegeapplies directly to the security attendant in charge ofsecuring
33、the store and its property.This privilege gives thesecurity attendant extra leeway in detaining people in whomhe has reasonable suspicion.Most courts would lean heavilytowards the shopkeeper because person A was on the propertyof the grocery store and thus could be subjected to extrascrutiny given t
34、he long history of the shopkeepers privilegein common law.ConclusionPerson A would most likely not prevail in the courts becausethe security attendant does not satisfy either element offalse imprisonment.The detention of person A was legalbecause the security attendant had both just cause andauthority.Additionally,the shopkeepers privilege furthersolidifies the legality of the detention.Person A,therefore,has no recourse under the law.