Category: Case Briefs

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…

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…