Note: You will see that I use the Problem section as the roof section in the following example. I believe this helps the reader digest the following information, but some disagree with me on this point and simply state the legal issues. Some professors may not want to see this language – the question is if. they get the same result, for example, with other words “Did” or “Can”. Don`t fixate on the tongue. Follow your teacher`s instructions and find that in both cases you will get the same result: the identification of the legal problem. “Weil” is the most important word in writing the analysis. Using the word “because” forces you to make the connection between the rule and the facts. You will find that you can also use the words “like” and “since”, they serve the same purpose as “because”. It is doubtful that immediate medical treatment was not required for Lucy`s wrist sprain, so she would not be allowed to leave the crime scene under AP9.99. Given that Lucy`s wrist was severely swollen, she has strong arguments that she reasonably believed that her injuries were far worse than a sprain and that she therefore had the right to leave the premises under Jones v. Jones. What you need to write: In this case, Pete, the police officer, realized that Dan matched the suspect`s description, which provided a likely reason for the arrest because Dan was extremely tall at 6`4 and was wearing a green and light brown sweater with purple spots and pointed alligator cowboy boots, corresponding to the description of the eyewitness of the flight.
RAIC is a four-part writing method consisting of a problem section, a rule section, an application section, and a conclusion section. While this system may seem rigid, there is some leeway for the flexibility that is sometimes required to get a readable answer. For now, though, let`s start with a basic overview of an RAIC. What you should write: Here, Dr. Jones can be considered an independent consultant of ABC Inc. because he performs all research and development work in his own laboratory in a separate facility from ABC, where he has direct control over employees because he has hired his own assistants who set their working hours. He also has direct control over his own work, as he sets his own working hours and meets with ABC only once a week. Since he only meets once a week with the president of ABC to discuss the progress made in the development of the hair loss product, the president supervises Dr. Jones on the day-to-day work done in the lab. Although Lucy completes all the elements of PA9.98 and leaves the scene of the accident, she is probably considered justified in leaving this scene due to the severity of her injuries. If the court does not accept her argument that she reasonably believed that medical treatment was needed immediately, she will be found guilty.
But you can always use the following language to guide your thought process. RAIC stands for the “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion” structure of legal analysis. An effective essay follows a form of RAIC structure in which it is organized around a “problem,” a “rule,” an “application,” and a “conclusion” for each individual problem and sub-problem identified as a legal problem. While using the RAIC does not guarantee an “A” from the professor, it is extremely helpful in organizing a response. And while this isn`t the only way to structure an answer, it helps ensure that all bases are covered. So until you reach the level of mental and written fluency where you can weave rules and facts into a seamless network and transition between thoughts without losing your substance or reader, I highly recommend relying on some form of RAIC to stay focused. While the RAIC never covers a lack of knowledge or replaces a lack of analysis, you can use it as a tool to organize your thinking and writing. Think of it as a support scaffolding (or drive wheels) to make sure the necessary steps are followed. Once the process becomes instinctive, the props can be thrown away and you can weave the rule and facts together. But by then, you`ll have something you can count on to guide you through the process. Note: Repeat the process for each identified issue – each issue forms the basis of a separate RAIC analysis. then connect to the “relevant” facts (the relevant facts are the facts that determine the outcome), Under general state law, Lucy is guilty of leaving the scene of the accident, but is likely entitled to do so due to the nature of the injury she sustained.
Most of the factual patterns you`ll see throughout law school and throughout life include many different legal issues. While you can write multiple RAIs for multiple outputs, the result will often be more readable and efficient (i.e. good for timed checks) if you combine intertwined issues into a mega RAIC. Examples of how “weil” works to change recitation into application: Since Lucy was driving a car involved in an accident, she is an “involved party” under Smith v. Smith. Given that he is an involved party and that he left the scene of the accident prior to the arrival of the police, he complies with the elements of AP9.98 and is likely guilty unless his actions are justified under PA9.99. According to Public Law 9.98, “it is illegal for any party involved to leave the scene of a road accident before the arrival of the police”; Schmidt v. Smith noted that “a party involved is defined as any person driving or driving in a vehicle involved in an accident.” Lucy was driving a car on a country road and collided with another vehicle coming off an alley. Lucy suffered a sprained wrist that developed severe swelling. A passerby drove Lucy to the nearest hospital before police arrived on the scene. What not to write: ABC Inc.
asked Dr. Jones to develop a drug that reduces hair loss. Dr. Jones worked in his own laboratory, hiring and firing his own assistants, and scheduling their and his own working hours. He meets with the president of ABC every Friday morning to discuss the progress of the project, and at that time, Dr. Jones submits his timesheet for payment. The president pays Dr. Jones every week. when he pushed Pam even though he knew she wasn`t at risk of being hit by the cyclist (or when he said, “Would you buy my watch next Tuesday for $500 in cash?”) or when the defendant did business in Forum State, had a full-time office and staff, and paid state taxes). Conclusion: Specify the most likely conclusions using the logic in the application section. Remember to include other results resulting from ambiguities in the relevant facts and rules.
Identify and indicate the legal conclusion you want the court to reach Don committed an assault (or an offer was made, or the court can invoke personal jurisdiction) Application: Apply the relevant rules to the facts that caused the problem.
Comments are closed.