Author: esquire

IRAC Summary: Issue: Does the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts, apply to criminal prosecutions in state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment? Rule: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the exclusionary rule,…

IRAC Summary: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Issue: The issue in Miranda v. Arizona is whether the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extends to the police interrogation of a suspect in custody and whether certain procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that a suspect’s confession is truly voluntary. Rule: The Supreme Court held that the Fifth…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The key issue in Gideon v. Wainwright is whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases extends to felony defendants in state courts, and if so, whether states are required to provide counsel to defendants who are unable to afford an attorney. Rule: The Sixth Amendment to the United States…

Case Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: The central issue in Hickman v. Taylor (1947) is whether the work product of an attorney, including written statements, private memoranda, and personal recollections prepared in anticipation of litigation, is protected from discovery by the opposing party. Rule: The court established the “work product doctrine,” which provides that written materials…

IRAC Summary: Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno Issue: Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied where the majority of relevant factors point to a foreign jurisdiction, and the alternative forum is the residence of most plaintiffs and evidence, despite the plaintiffs choosing a U.S. jurisdiction for perceived litigation advantages. Rule: The doctrine…

IRAC Summary Issue: Whether the defendants, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. and its co-defendants, could be subjected to the personal jurisdiction of the Oklahoma state courts in a product liability action when their business activities were based in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and they had no direct contacts with Oklahoma. Rule: For a state court…

IRAC Summary: Issue: Whether the plaintiffs’ complaint alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by Bell Atlantic Corp. and other telecommunications companies for engaging in anticompetitive conduct met the standard for stating a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule: To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern): Issue: The key issue in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), is whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded that government officials were personally responsible for alleged unconstitutional actions against him based on his race, religion, or national origin, and whether he stated a plausible claim for relief that allows the case…

IRAC Summary: Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) Issue: The central issue in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) is whether the federal courts should apply state substantive law or federal general common law when hearing cases under their diversity jurisdiction. Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no federal general common law…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The primary issue in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant meets the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rule: The relevant legal rule is derived from the “minimum contacts” standard established in International Shoe Co. v.…

Case Summary (IRAC Format): Issue: The primary legal issue in Pennoyer v. Neff is whether the state court of Oregon had jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against a non-resident who was not personally served with process within the state and did not voluntarily appear in the proceedings. Rule: For a court to render a…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern): Issue: Whether the state of Washington had jurisdiction to impose a tax on International Shoe Co. for the benefit of its unemployed workers, given that the company had no physical presence in the state, only sales representatives. Rule: Due process requires that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The main issue in Vosburg v. Putney is whether a defendant can be held liable for battery when an unintentional and seemingly harmless act results in significant injury to another due to an unknown preexisting condition. Rule: The rule of law in this case is that an individual may be held liable…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: The primary legal issue in Summers v. Tice is whether, in a situation where two defendants negligently cause an injury but there is uncertainty as to which defendant’s act was the direct cause, both defendants can be held jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Rule: The court applied…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: The primary legal question is whether Coca Cola Bottling Co. is liable for the injuries suffered by Gladys Escola when a bottle of Coca-Cola exploded in her hand. Rule: In cases of products liability for negligence, a manufacturer owes a duty of care to individuals who may foreseeably come into…

IRAC Summary of Garratt v. Dailey Issue: The key legal issue in Garratt v. Dailey is whether Brian Dailey, a five-year-old boy, committed the tort of battery when he pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt causing her to fall and suffer injuries. Specifically, the case addresses whether Dailey had the requisite intent for…

Brief Summary of the Case (IRAC) Issue: The primary issue in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to third parties who are not in privity of contract (i.e., have no direct contractual relationship) with the manufacturer when the product in question is inherently dangerous and could cause…

IRAC Summary of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Issue: The primary issue in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. is whether a manufacturer can be held strictly liable in tort when a consumer is injured by a defective product, even in the absence of a contract between the injured party and the manufacturer. Rule:…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The issue in Rylands v. Fletcher revolves around whether a person who brings onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes is liable for any resultant damage, even if the person has not been negligent. Rule: The House of Lords developed a new rule of strict liability for what…

IRAC Summary: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) Issue: The primary issue is whether mental health professionals have a duty to warn an identifiable third party or parties when their patient poses a serious risk of violence. Rule: The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who…