Author: esquire

Case Citation: Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965) IRAC Summary: Issue: Whether the cross-collateral clause in the contract between Walker-Thomas Furniture Company and Ora Lee Williams is enforceable under the doctrine of unconscionability. Rule: The doctrine of unconscionability allows courts to refuse to enforce contracts that are so one-sided or…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The main issue in Raffles v. Wichelhaus is whether there was a binding contract between the parties when there was a mutual misunderstanding regarding a material term of the contract, namely, the identity of the ship called “Peerless.” Rule: The rule of law from this case involves the concept of mutual mistake.…

, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) IRAC Summary Issue: The central issue in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is whether a court should defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute that it administers if the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is…

IRAC Summary Issue: Whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving state legislative apportionment issues, and whether such issues present justiciable questions that can be addressed by the courts as opposed to being political questions that should be resolved by the legislative branch. Rule: The political question doctrine limits the courts’ jurisdiction over…

Brief Summary of the Case (IRAC) Issue: Whether the District of Columbia’s ban on the possession of operable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Rule: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for…

IRAC Summary: Citizens United v. FEC Issue: Whether certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that restrict corporations from making independent expenditures for electioneering communications violate the First Amendment. Rule: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. Previous case law has established that…

IRAC Summary: Issue: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and does it require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed and performed in a state where it is legal? Rule: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Application: The Due…

Case Summary: Roe v. Wade (1973) Issue: Does the Constitution recognize a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion, and are the Texas criminal abortion statutes that prohibit procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life unconstitutional? Rule: The Due Process Clause of the 14th…

Case Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: The central issue in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was whether the segregation of public schools based on race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rule: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The primary issue in United States v. Lopez (1995) is whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibits individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, exceeded the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Rule: The Commerce Clause (Article I,…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The issue in McCulloch v. Maryland was whether Congress had the authority to establish a national bank (the Second Bank of the United States) and, if so, whether the state of Maryland had the power to tax that bank. Rule: The Constitution grants Congress implied powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause…

IRAC Summary: Marbury v. Madison (1803) Issue: The primary legal issue in Marbury v. Madison centers on whether the petitioner, William Marbury, has a right to the commission he demands and whether the law provides him a remedy. Moreover, it questions whether the Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine…

IRAC Summary of Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Issue: The central issue in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) was whether executing mentally disabled individuals constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Rule: The Supreme Court considered the Eighth Amendment in light of the “evolving standards of decency that mark…

Case Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: Whether the criminal conviction of two adults for engaging in consensual homosexual intercourse in the privacy of a home violates their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rule: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the protection of…

IRAC Summary: Issue: Whether the imposition of the death penalty in this case constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Rule: The death penalty itself is not “cruel and unusual punishment” for the crime of murder when it is executed in a carefully employed…

Case Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: The central issue in Furman v. Georgia (1972) was whether the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Rule: The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.…

IRAC Summary: Issue: Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution permit a state to execute a defendant who was 17 years old at the time of committing a capital crime. Rule: The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishments,” and the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying “any person within its…

Summary (IRAC Pattern): Issue: The primary issue is whether the government’s act of attaching an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth, which was used by the petitioner to transmit wagering information by telephone, violated the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Rule: The Fourth Amendment…

IRAC Summary of United States v. Leon (1984) Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule should be modified to incorporate a “good faith” exception for evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently found to be invalid. Rule: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that…

IRAC Summary Issue: Whether a police officer’s stop-and-frisk of a suspect, carried out without a warrant or probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Rule: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has ruled that searches and seizures can…