Category: Case Briefs

IRAC Summary Issue: Does the court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the given circumstance? Rule: Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to bring a person into its adjudicative process; jurisdiction is typically established based on the defendant’s physical presence within the state, domicile, consent, or minimum contacts with the forum state that…

IRAC Summary Issue: The main issue in Shaffer v. Heitner is whether the Delaware courts can exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants based on the mere presence of the defendants’ property in the state, even when the property is unrelated to the plaintiff’s cause of action. Rule: The Supreme Court held that the due process clause…

Summary of the Case (IRAC Pattern): Issue: The main issue in McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. is whether Pheasant Run, Inc., the defendant, is liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, McCarty, when she was attacked by an unknown assailant while a guest at the resort owned by the defendant. Specifically, the case examines…

IRAC Summary Issue: The primary legal issue in Byrne v. Boadle (1863) is whether the defendant can be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries under the doctrine of negligence, despite the lack of direct evidence of negligence, by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Rule: Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that allows a…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The issue in Rowland v. Christian is whether a possessor of land is liable to a non-social guest for injuries caused by a defective condition on the premises. Rule: The court abolished the traditional distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers in determining the duty of care owed by a possessor of land.…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The issue in United States v. Carroll Towing Co. is whether the barge owner or the tugboat company is liable for the loss of cargo when the barge broke free from its moorings and sank. Rule: The court established the “Learned Hand formula,” which assesses liability based on a calculus of negligence.…

Case: Christie v. Elliott (1910) IRAC Summary: Issue: The primary legal issue in Christie v. Elliott is whether a landlord (Christie) can be held liable for personal injuries suffered by a child (Elliott) due to a dangerous condition on the rental property, which was known to the landlord but not repaired. Rule: The rule of…

Case: UCC 2-207 (Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-207) IRAC Summary: Issue: The issue in UCC 2-207 centers around the “battle of the forms,” which occurs when two parties to a contract exchange forms (such as purchase orders and invoices) with varying terms, and it must be determined which terms govern the contract between them. Rule:…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The central issue in Jacob & Youngs v. Kent revolves around whether a minor deviation from contract specifications, specifically the use of a different brand of pipe than the one specified, entitles the homeowner to damages or requires the contractor to replace the pipes, despite the substantial completion of the home and…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The issue in Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store is whether an advertisement published by the defendant, offering to sell fur coats worth $100 for $1 each to the first persons who come into the store, constitutes a valid, enforceable offer that can be accepted, thereby creating a contract. Rule: An advertisement…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The main issue in Sullivan v. O’Connor is whether a patient can recover damages from a physician for breach of contract and negligence resulting in a failure to deliver the promised result of a cosmetic surgery operation, and the extent of damages available for the breach of promise in causing emotional distress.…

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…