Read the attached file

Legal Analysis Process

The commonly used approach to legal analysis involves a four-step process: IRAC

Step 1 Issue- The identification of the issue (legal question) or issues raised by the 

facts of the client’s case

Step 2 Rule- The identification of the law that governs the issue

Step 3 Application- A determination of how the rule of law applies to the issue 

(sometimes referred to as the analysis step)

Step 4 Conclusion- A summary of the results of the legal analysis

An acronym commonly used in reference to the analytical process is IRAC. It 

is composed of the first letters of the descriptive terms for the four steps of the legal 

analysis process. The acronym is an easy way to remember the four-step legal analysis process—Issue, Rule, Analysis/Application, and Conclusion.

Each of these steps is addressed in detail in subsequent sections of this 

chapter.

But before the legal analysis of a case can properly begin, some preliminary 

preparation must take place:

1. All the facts and information relevant to the case should be gathered.

2. Preliminary legal research should be conducted to gain a basic familiarity 

with the area of law involved in the case.

Using the IRAC format, do a written I R A C brief for:

Scruggs, 785 So.2d 605 (DCA 4 2001)

This is an example of how it should be : (elaborate and detailed)

HERE IS AN I R A C FORMAT BRIEF OF THE TAYLOR CASE:

Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 580 (DCA 1 1996) (note here that the Taylor IRAC brief will be much shorter and simpler that the Scruggs IRAC brief, chiefly because the Scruggs case has a much more complicated fact pattern. Thus, if many facts are discussed by the court to render its opinion, all such facts should be included in the IRAC brief).

ISSUE: Taylor was convicted of aggravated battery, and argued on appeal that the state failed to establish that the crowbar he used was a deadly weapon.

RULE: The Court previously held that a deadly weapon is any instrument which, when it is used in the ordinary manner for which it is designed, will or is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, or any instrument likely to cause great bodily harm because of the way it is used during a crime. See D.C. v. State, 567 So2d 998 (DCA 1 1990).

Whether the crowbar is a deadly weapon is a fact questions to be “determined under all the circumstances, taking into consideration the weapon used and its capability for use.”

APPLICATION/ANALYSIS; The State’s witnesses testified that Taylor intentionally struck Smith on the top of his head with a crowbar and that the wound split open the victim’s head which caused him to bleed and lose consciousness, and for which he was treated at a hospital.

CONCLUSION: Based upon the foregoing the Court affirmed Taylor’s conviction.