RULE

LAWNERDS.COM
-> What is the governing law for the issue?
About Us
Site Map ANALYSIS
Books
Links -> Does the rule apply to these unique facts?

Frame of Mind 2 The Case Method CONCLUSION

Class Time Create an Outline
Pre-Write Your Exam Test Yourself! -> How does the court's holding modify the rule
Sample Answers of law?
Learn the Secret to Legal Reasoning

The IRAC Formula Return to Top Test Yourself!

Issue Spotting - The First Step
Rule - What is the Law?
Analysis - The Art of Lawyering Issue Spotting - The First Step
Conclusion - Take a Position
The IRAC Triad "The facts of a case suggest an Issue."
IRAC Examples
The key to issue spotting is being able to
identify which facts raise which issues. Because
The Rule of Law - In Depth of the complexity of the law, the elimination or
Taxonomy of Rules addition of one fact (such as time of day or
Form and Function of Rules whether someone was drinking) can eliminate
Extracting the Rule or add issues to a case thereby raising an
Analysis - In Depth entirely different rule of law.
Analysis for Beginners
The Four Types of Analytical Tests In law school casebooks, the easiest way to
isolate the issue is to merely look at the chapter
headings of the cases, such as "Personal
The IRAC Formula Jurisdiction" in Civil Procedure or "Offer and
Acceptance" in Contracts. The cases you read
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion) will also contain language that signals the
forms the fundamental building blocks of legal important issue. For instance, the judge will
analysis. It is the process by which all lawyers simply state:
think about any legal problem. The beauty of
IRAC is that it allows you to reduce the "The case turns upon the question whether...."
complexities of the law to a simple equation. OR "We come then to the basic issue in the
case."

ISSUE However, you need to develop issue-spotting

skills on your own in order to do well on the
-> What facts and circumstances brought these exam and become an effective lawyer. During
parties to court? the exam the professor is not going to state the
issue. Ask yourself some of these questions as
you read the case:
 Are there social considerations?
Questions to ask when reading a case:

What facts and circumstances brought these The trap for the unwary is to stop at the rule.
parties to court? Although the rule is the law, the art of
Are there buzzwords in the facts that suggest an lawyering is in the analysis.
issue?
Is the court deciding a question of fact - i.e. the Return to Top Test Yourself!
parties are in dispute over what happened - or
is it a question of law - i.e. the court is unsure
which rule to apply to these facts? Analysis - The Art of Lawyering
What are the non-issues?
"Compare the facts to the rule to form the
Analysis."
Whenever you read a case, state the issue as a
question turning on a set of particular facts. See This important area is really relatively simple.
the examples to see how it is done. By For every relevant fact, you need to ask
incorporating particular facts into the issue, you whether the fact helps to prove or disprove the
build a database of issues for the exam. rule. If a rule requires that a certain
circumstance is present in order for the rule to
Return to Top Test Yourself! apply, then the absence of that circumstance
helps you reach the conclusion that the rule
does not apply. For instance, all contracts for
Rule - What is the Law? the sale of goods over $500 have to be in
writing. Consequently, in analyzing a contract
"The issue is covered by a Rule of law." for the sale of goods, you apply the presence or
absence of two facts - worth of good and
Simply put, the rule is the law. The rule could be whether there's a written contract - in order to
common law that was developed by the courts see whether the rule holds true.
or a law that was passed by the legislature.
The biggest mistake people make in exam
For every case you read, extract the rule of law writing is to spot the issue and just recite the
by breaking it down into its component parts. In rule without doing the analysis. Most professors
other words, ask the question: what elements know that you can look up the law, but they
of the rule must be proven in order for the rule want to test whether you can apply the law to a
to hold true? given set of circumstances. The analysis is the
most important element of IRAC since this is
where the real thinking happens.

Questions to ask when reading a case:

What are the elements that prove the rule? Questions to ask when reading a case:
What are the exceptions to the rule?
From what authority does it come? Common Which facts help prove which elements of the
law, statute, new rule? rule?
What's the underlying public policy behind the Why are certain facts relevant?
rule? How do these facts satisfy this rule?
What types of facts are applied to the rule? In addition, the conclusion should always be
How do these facts further the public policy stated as a probable result. Courts differ widely
underlying this rule? on a given set of facts, and there is usually
What's the counter-argument for another flexibility for different interpretations. Be sure
solution? to look at the validity of the opponent's
position. If your case has flaws, it is important
to recognize those weaknesses and identify
Return to Top Test Yourself! them.

Conclusion - Take a Position Questions to ask when reading a case:

"From the analysis you come to a Conclusion as What's the holding of the case?
to whether the rule applies to the facts." Has the holding modified the existing rule of
law?
The conclusion is the shortest part of the What is the procedural effect of the holding? Is
equation. It can be a simple "yes" or "no" as to the case overturned, upheld or remanded for
whether the rule applies to a set of facts. A retrial?
clever professor will often give you a set of facts Does the holding further the underlying policy
that could go either way in order to see how of the rule?
well you analyze a difficult issue. The mistake Do you agree with the outcome of the case?
many students make is to never take a position
one way or the other on an issue. Most
professors want you to take a position and Return to Top Test Yourself!
support it in order to see how well you analyze.

Another common mistake is to conclude The IRAC Triad

something without having a basis for the
opinion. In other words, students will spot the IRAC is a good model for first year law students.
issue, state a rule, and then form a conclusion However, in the pressure of the exam, many
without doing the analysis. Make sure that students leave out the most important part of
whatever position you take has a firm the equation - the analysis. In order to illustrate
grounding in the analysis. Remember that the the important of the analysis, I've modified the
position you take is always whether or not the traditional model into what I call the IRAC Triad.
rule applies.

If a rule does not apply, don't fall into the trap

of being conclusive on a party's liability or
innocence. There may be another rule by which The IRAC Triad emphasizes the Analysis by using
the party should be judged. In other words you the Facts, Issue and Rule as building blocks. The
should conclude as to whether the rule applies, Analysis is the end product and primary goal of
but you shouldn't be conclusive as to whether the IRAC Triad, but the role that facts play in
some other result is probable. In that case, you forming the analysis is highlighted.
need to raise another rule and analyze the facts
again. Step 1: The facts of a case suggest an Issue.

The legal issue would not exist unless some

event occurred.
 Note that the issue is stated in the form of a
Step 2: The issue is governed by a Rule of law. question and uses key facts to illustrate the
problem. Don't be alarmed if you didn't see the
The issue mechanically determines what rule is issue right away. By reading case law in
applied. contracts, you will learn that these sorts of
factual situations give rise to issues surrounding
Step 3: Compare the facts to the rule to form whether a contract is valid.
the Analysis.
Rule:
Do the facts satisfy the requirements of the
rule? A contract must be in writing if it is not possible
to perform the contract within one year. -
The Triad is actually just a simple flowchart in Statute of Frauds
which the facts can be pigeonholed into a
Conclusion. The issue immediately triggers the appropriate
rule. Again, the appropriate rules are something
that you will learn in your first year of contract
law.
Return to Top Test Yourself!
Analysis:

IRAC Examples The Statute of Frauds does not state that the
contract must be performed within one year. It
In each one of these examples, a hypothetical only states that it must be possible to complete
fact pattern is broken into IRAC elements by the contract within a year. Since a very ill, old
using the three steps of the IRAC Triad. man could have died within one year, it is
possible that the contract could have been
Contracts Hypothetical completed.

Facts: This analysis shows how closely you must pay

attention to the wording of a rule. The words
An old man who is very ill and near death "not possible" indicate that a remote possibility
makes an oral contract with his nephew. The of being able to complete the contract means
terms of the contract are that the uncle will the rule does not apply.
immediately give his nephew all of his life
savings - $100,000 - in return for the nephew's Conclusion:
promise to provide food and shelter for the old
man until the man dies. The nephew takes the The Statute of Frauds probably does not apply
money and supports the old man at a cost of in these circumstances, and the oral contract is
$10,000 a year. The old man lives longer than not invalid even though it was not completed
expected and is still alive after fifteen years, at within one year.
which point the nephew cuts the old man off
without further support. Conclusions should be short and put in terms of
a probability.
Issue:
Civil Procedure Hypothetical
Is an oral contract valid after fifteen years?
Facts:
 the same particular facts and controversy) in
1. Patricia sues Daniel in federal district court state court, then Daniel can argue to have the
over money that she says he owes her. case thrown out of court using the principle of
res judicata.
2. She wins her case.
Conclusion:
3. Daniel appeals the decision in the federal
appellate court, which overturns the lower Patricia cannot bring the case in state court.
court's decision on a technical error.
Criminal Law Hypothetical
4. Patricia appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court,
and the court refuses to hear the case. Facts:

Just as the sun is setting one night, Carl sees

that the door to Vince's house is ajar. Carl
5. Patricia attempts to sue Daniel a second time knows that Vince has a home office in which
in the state court system over the same issue of there is expensive computer equipment. Carl
the money she says he owes her. pushes the unlocked door open, walks into the
house and steals Vince's computer equipment
Issue: that is valued at well over $5000.

Does the fact that Patricia took her case to the Issue:
highest federal court and lost prevent her from
starting the same case in a state court? Is opening an unlocked door to a building at
twilight to commit a theft sufficient to
Civil Procedure questions quite naturally focus constitute a charge of burglary?
on whether a plaintiff or defendant has
correctly followed the rules in bringing a case to Rule:
court. Civil Procedure generally does not focus
on the substance of the dispute - i.e. whether The common law requirements for a burglary
the plaintiff or defendant wins. are that there be: 1) a breaking 2) and entry 3)
of a dwelling 4) of another 5) at night 6) with
Rule: the intent of committing a felony therein.

The principle of res judicata states that once a Analysis:

final judgment on the merits has been made on
a particular case, the plaintiff is barred from Element 1) Although the door was ajar and
bringing that same case against the same unlocked, Carl's merely opening the door was
defendant in the same or different court. sufficient minimal force to constitute a breaking
since the nearly shut door was meant to deter
Analysis: unwanted entry. No actual breaking of the door
or lock is necessary.
Since Patricia appealed the case to the highest
court, a final judgment is considered to have Elements 2, 3 and 4) Carl clearly entered the
been made on the matter. She has exhausted house, which is not his own. The house is
all of the potential appeals by going to the considered a dwelling since Vince regularly uses
highest court which has ruled on her case. If she the house for sleeping purposes.
attempts to bring the same cause of action (i.e.
Element 5) Whether it would be considered The three elements of battery are: 1) a harmful
night at twilight is determined by whether touching of another person 2) the defendant
Vince's face could be discerned in natural light caused the touching to occur directly or
at that hour. indirectly and 3) the touching was intentional.

Element 6) Stealing items worth $5000 is a Analysis:

felony in all states.
Element 1) The hitting of Peter in the head with
Notice how methodically each element is a board is considered harmful since it caused
proven using the facts provided. Even though substantial injury.
something like entering seems self-evident, the
fact that the defendant actually crossed the Element 2) Doug directly caused the injury since
threshold has to be stated in order for the legal he was physically holding the board as it swung
analysis to be complete. into Peter.

Conclusion: Element 3) The question of whether Doug

intended to hit Peter is a matter of fact that
Vince is probably subject to a charge of burglary must be decided by a jury. The fact that Doug
even though it was not technically nighttime hated Peter may weigh in the matter but is not
and the door was unlocked. dispositive. Doug must have known that Peter
was behind him and intentionally swung the
Torts Hypothetical board so as to purposefully harm Peter.

Facts: Conclusion:

Peter and Doug are neighbors who hate one Without further evidence, the facts do not
another. appear to indicate the intent necessary for
Peter to sue Doug for the tort of battery.
One day, Doug is nailing some boards together
on the common sidewalk that he shares with Return to Top Test Yourself!
Peter.

In a classic slapstick comedy move, Doug picks © Copyright 1999 - 2003 LawNerds.com, Inc. All
up a board just as Peter is passing behind him rights reserved.
and swings around so that the back end hits
Peter in the head.

The smack in the head causes substantial injury

to Peter.

Issue:

Is existing malice between two people enough

to show the intent necessary for liability for
battery?

Rule: