Top Law Schools

I have 3 written exams this semester and all three of them are IRAC (obviously). 1 profesor wants us to have very detailed IRACs, like pages on a single issue of negligence. Im basically concerned about 1 thing, how much if any facts of a casebook cases do I need to include in my analysis?

Do I need to briefly discuss the facts of a case I cite to for causation-in-fact or is it sufficient to say; "the instant issue will use the but-for test to determine whether Z was the actual cause of Y's injuries. The but-for test looks into whether an injury would occur without defendants negligent act or omission, if it would occur regardless of defendants act or omission then the defendant is not the actual cause of the injury. See Hill v. Edmonds. Y will argue, but-for Z's tailgating of Y, no accident would have occurred, and thus Y would have sustained no injuries. If Z had the appropriate distance between himself and Y, Z would have had time to brake and avoid the collision that injured Y. Therefore, Z was the actual cause of Y's injuries. On the other hand Z will argue that Y was the actual cause of the collision because Y negligently stopped in the road. But-for Y's stopping in the road, Z would not have struck Y's vehicle. However this is not a valid defense because there is no requirement that Z's negligence be the sole negligent act that led to the injury. See Hill v. Edmonds"

If someone could rate this and give me any tips on how I can improve I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you!

That looks good. You probably should never discuss the facts of cases unless you are distinguishing or applying the reasoning to the exam fact pattern. But ask your professor.

Also, say "the issue" instead of "the instant issue."

Breezin wrote:That looks good. You probably should never discuss the facts of cases unless you are distinguishing or applying the reasoning to the exam fact pattern. But ask your professor.

Also, say "the issue" instead of "the instant issue."

Thanks!

Just do: "point of law" (case name, preferably one name).

You need every second you can get.

leobowski wrote:Just do: "point of law" (case name, preferably one name).

You need every second you can get.

So facts of Hill v. Edmonds are not necessary? And i can just have the rule followed by one party in the case.

The but-for test.... Hill.

Like that?

You realize this is going to very substantially based on professors, exam format, time constraints, exact issue you are trying to make, how on point your cases are, etc. right?

ph14 wrote:You realize this is going to very substantially based on professors, exam format, time constraints, exact issue you are trying to make, how on point your cases are, etc. right?

My professor said we dont have to cite any cases, but it looks good if we do. To me this sounds like facts of the cases are important. However if I have an issue that is on point to a case we read I might mention something along the lines of, "Y's issue is very similar to the issue in Hill where the court applied the but-for test for actual causation and held that D was the actual cause of the injury even though P was aswell."

Im just wondering what the general concensus is on this.

ph14 wrote:You realize this is going to very substantially based on professors, exam format, time constraints, exact issue you are trying to make, how on point your cases are, etc. right?

This. Talk to your profs. and ask what they want to see. I could tell you that one of my profs. would ideally like to see formalistic analogy arguments that this case is like that case and specifically why, but that's not going to help you unless you have my prof. Profs. don't want to see "generally what most profs. want", they want to see what they want. TLS doesn't know what that is.