IRAC

IRAC is an acronym that generally stands for: Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. It functions as a methodology for legal analysis. The Sections of IRAC

Issue
The IRAC starts with a statement of the issue or question at hand. In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is. It is also equally important to stay away from including rules or analysis as it confuses the proper use of the methodology.

Rules
The rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue at hand. The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules pertinent in deciding the issue stated. Rules in a international law derive from the courts case precedent, treaties, customs or other international sources of law. The information included in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules.

Application/Analysis
The application/analysis section of an IRAC applies the rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand. This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis. It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented. The application/analysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand.

Conclusion
The conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the question presented in the issue section of the IRAC. It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis. This section restates the issue and provides the final answer.

Example - How to do it? As an example, we will look at whether someone can sue for battery as a result of inhaling second-hand smoke. The issue we will look at is whether there is contact, which is required for a battery claim. Note: The legal definition of battery is the tort of and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them (e.g. a hat, a purse). Battery involves an actual contact. The contact can be by one person (the tortfeasor) of another (the victim), or the contact may be by an object brought about by the tortfeasor.

Issue/Issues
Did contact occur when the plaintiff inhaled the second-hand smoke? Does contact occur when one inhales second-hand smoke created by another?

Rule/Rules
The prima facie case for battery requires the following elements: an act, intent, contact, causation, and harm. The offense of battery requires contact with the plaintiffs person.

Analysis
In Howe v. Ahn, the court held that noxious bus fumes inhaled by a passerby constitute harmful and offensive contact. Although the court has not extended this holding to a case involving second-hand smoke, numerous cases have likened second-hand smoke to air pollution (for example, Fox v. Abernathy). Policy considerations also favor finding contact in the present case. If one can prove harm as a result of inhaling second-hand smoke, it is better for the smoker to compensate the victim than burden the state.

Conclusion
The court is likely to find that harmful contact occurs when a smoker releases second-hand smoke into the air and that air is inhaled by a bystander.