Misplaced Pages

#66933

132-454: In the IRAC method of legal analysis, the "issue" is simply a legal question that must be answered. An issue arises when the facts of a case present a legal ambiguity that must be resolved in a case, and legal researchers (whether paralegals, law students, lawyers, or judges) typically resolve the issue by consulting legal precedent (existing statutes, past cases, court rules, etc.). For example, suppose

264-573: A " case of first impression " with no precedent or clear legislative guidance, judges are empowered to resolve the issue and establish new precedent. Common law developed in the king's courts of England following the Norman Conquest of 1066. It established a unified legal system that was "common" to all the king's courts, gradually supplanting the disparate local folk courts and manorial courts . British colonial expansion carried English common law and statutory law to America, Asia, Africa, and

396-483: A basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus . Under common law , false imprisonment is both a crime and a tort . Within the context of false imprisonment, an imprisonment occurs when a person is restrained from moving from a location or bounded area, as a result of a wrongful intentional act, such as the use of force, threat, coercion, or abuse of authority . Not all acts of involuntary detention amount to false imprisonment. An accidental detention will not support

528-533: A broader principle out of these predecessor cases. The facts were almost identical to Cadillac a year earlier: a wheel from a wheel manufacturer was sold to Buick, to a dealer, to MacPherson, and the wheel failed, injuring MacPherson. Judge Cardozo held: It may be that Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co. have extended the rule of Thomas v. Winchester . If so, this court is committed to the extension. The defendant argues that things imminently dangerous to life are poisons, explosives, deadly weapons—things whose normal function it

660-425: A character inherently that, when applied to the purposes for which it was designed, it was liable to become a source of great danger to many people if not carefully and properly constructed". Yet the privity rule survived. In Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson (decided in 1915 by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from

792-472: A claim of false imprisonment since false imprisonment requires an intentional act. The law may privilege a person to detain somebody else against their will. A legally authorised detention does not constitute false imprisonment. For example, if a parent or legal guardian of a child denies the child's request to leave their house, and prevents them from doing so, this would not ordinarily constitute false imprisonment. Under United States law , police officers have

924-478: A claimant accedes to authority that does not necessarily mean they consent to being detained, as in Warner v Riddiford (1858). 'Imprisonment is, as I apprehend, a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however, short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will, whatever inconvenience it may bring on him.' There must be complete restraint, therefore, if there are alternative routes that can be taken this

1056-431: A contract. Moreover, the defence of illegality may also apply. If the victim was acting illegally, locking them in a room to protect oneself whilst calling the police is a legitimate defence. However, if the use of force or in this case imprisonment was unreasonable, this would not be a viable defence, as is shown in the case of Revil v Newbery where a homeowner fired a shotgun to the burglar and ended up injuring him, this

1188-481: A decision are often more important in the long run than the outcome in a particular case. This is the reason that judicial opinions are usually quite long, and give rationales and policies that can be balanced with judgment in future cases, rather than the bright-line rules usually embodied in statutes. All law systems rely on written publication of the law, so that it is accessible to all. Common law decisions are published in law reports for use by lawyers, courts and

1320-411: A defective wheel, when the automobile owner had a contract only with the automobile dealer and not with the manufacturer, even though there was "no question that the wheel was made of dead and 'dozy' wood, quite insufficient for its purposes". The Cadillac court was willing to acknowledge that the case law supported exceptions for "an article dangerous in its nature or likely to become so in the course of

1452-636: A government function in 1874 . West Publishing in Minnesota is the largest private-sector publisher of law reports in the United States. Government publishers typically issue only decisions "in the raw", while private sector publishers often add indexing, including references to the key principles of the common law involved, editorial analysis, and similar finding aids. Statutes are generally understood to supersede common law. They may codify existing common law, create new causes of action that did not exist in

SECTION 10

#1732863262067

1584-417: 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. The Application (or 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

1716-410: A line somewhere, a limit on the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury. The court looked to the contractual relationships, and held that liability would only flow as far as the person in immediate contract ("privity") with the negligent party. A first exception to this rule arose in 1852, in the case of Thomas v. Winchester , when New York's highest court held that mislabeling

1848-429: A loaf of bread. He then stuffs the bread beneath his jacket. A security attendant sees him and follows him to the cash register. Person A passes through without stopping to pay for anything. The security attendant stops him at the gate. He detains person A while he interrogates him. Person A is unresponsive and uncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the security attendant. Person A

1980-530: A means to redress certain challenges to established law. Oliver Wendell Holmes once dissented: "judges do and must legislate". There is a controversial legal maxim in American law that " Statutes in derogation of the common law ought to be narrowly construed ". Henry Campbell Black once wrote that the canon "no longer has any foundation in reason". It is generally associated with the Lochner era . The presumption

2112-424: A new line in the last sentence quoted above: "There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable." But while adhering to the underlying principle that some boundary is necessary, MacPherson overruled the prior common law by rendering the formerly dominant factor in the boundary, that is, the privity formality arising out of a contractual relationship between persons, totally irrelevant. Rather,

2244-486: A person can be kept in detention is directly related to the circumstances under which the detention takes place. Application/Analysis Person A was conducting his activity in a crowded place that happened to be a grocery store. He was further detained by a security attendant. The security attendant had seen him pick up a loaf of bread and walk past the cash register without paying. The security attendant detained him until he discovered that no theft had taken place. Person A

2376-433: A person has been falsely imprisoned, namely just cause and authority. In looking at the element of just cause, courts further analyze two factors: reasonable suspicion and the environment in which the actions take place. If a person suspects that he is being deprived of property legally attached to him and he can show that his suspicions are reasonable then he is said to have a reasonable suspicion. Courts also look at whether

2508-403: A person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority , justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides

2640-408: A person is allowed to use reasonable force to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time. The shopkeeper has cause to believe that the detainee in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property. The shopkeeper is allowed to ask the suspect to demonstrate that they have not been shoplifting . The purpose of the shopkeeper's privilege is to discover if

2772-443: A person is what matters and not necessarily an intention to falsely imprison someone. For example, in R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans , it did not matter if the decision to imprison the claimant was in good faith, or considered lawful, it still constituted false imprisonment. False imprisonment does not require a literal prison, but a restriction of the claimant's freedom of movement ( complete restraint ). According to

SECTION 20

#1732863262067

2904-447: A person's motive because of his location. This then seems to satisfy the second factor of the element of just cause, environment. The second element of false imprisonment is authority. The person performing the detention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. He is the person charged with securing the grocery store and its property. The security attendant sees person A put the loaf of bread underneath his coat and walk through

3036-452: A poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put "human life in imminent danger". Thomas relied on this reason to create an exception to the "privity" rule. In 1909, New York held in Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co. that a coffee urn manufacturer was liable to a person injured when the urn exploded, because the urn "was of such

3168-411: A presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident. Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson , 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952); Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Solimino , 501 U.S. 104, 108 (1991). In such cases, Congress does not write upon a clean slate. Astoria , 501 U.S. at 108. In order to abrogate a common-law principle,

3300-505: A prisoner is lawfully held, it is not false imprisonment just because the conditions are unsanitary such as in the case of R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison , 'although this may instead be found to be negligence or the tort of misfeasance in a public office.' Another example would again be the case of Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007], a case concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of

3432-573: A product defect, and if a part was built up out of parts from parts manufacturers, the ultimate buyer could not recover for injury caused by a defect in the part. In an 1842 English case, Winterbottom v Wright , the postal service had contracted with Wright to maintain its coaches. Winterbottom was a driver for the post. When the coach failed and injured Winterbottom, he sued Wright. The Winterbottom court recognized that there would be "absurd and outrageous consequences" if an injured person could sue any person peripherally involved, and knew it had to draw

3564-432: A reasonable person in his place would have also considered this action to be suspicious. Person A further walks by the cash register without paying. The security attendant has already seen person A hiding the bread under his jacket and honestly believes that person A is still in possession of the loaf of bread. A reasonable person in the security attendant's stead would arguably act to stop person A. Thus, this seems to satisfy

3696-454: A reasonable route of escape/reasonable action you will not be awarded damages. It is still false imprisonment even where the claimant does not know at the time. So secretly locking someone in a room is false imprisonment. It may also be false imprisonment where a person is rendered unconscious, for example, by being punched (also a battery), or when their drink is spiked by drugs (also wilful harm or negligence), because their freedom of movement

3828-409: A shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge or acting upon their suspicion and risk making a false arrest . In order for a customer to be detained, the shopkeeper must: In Enright v. Groves , a woman sued a police officer for false imprisonment after being arrested for not producing her driver's license . The plaintiff was in her car when she

3960-601: A strong allegiance to a large body of precedent, parties have less a priori guidance (unless the written law is very clear and kept updated) and must often leave a bigger "safety margin" of unexploited opportunities, and final determinations are reached only after far larger expenditures on legal fees by the parties. This is the reason for the frequent choice of the law of the State of New York in commercial contracts, even when neither entity has extensive contacts with New York—and remarkably often even when neither party has contacts with

4092-402: A unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies and reinstating a jury system—citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge , not necessarily through

IRAC - Misplaced Pages Continue

4224-584: A warrant, police may make an arrest pursuant to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: 'anyone who is about to commit, is committing or has committed an offence or is so suspected on reasonable grounds may be arrested.' Also, arrest may be lawful if the police have reason to believe that the person arrested poses an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Private citizens can also make an arrest for crimes being committed/that have been committed but only in relation to indictable offences ('citizen's arrest'). When

4356-410: Is a decision based on the application of the rules to the facts for each issue. IRAC has many proponents and opponents. The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that

4488-498: Is a strength of common law systems, and is a significant contributor to the robust commercial systems in the United Kingdom and United States. Because there is reasonably precise guidance on almost every issue, parties (especially commercial parties) can predict whether a proposed course of action is likely to be lawful or unlawful, and have some assurance of consistency. As Justice Brandeis famously expressed it, "in most matters it

4620-452: Is a vital process where the final calls are distributed upon the previous cases and are redefined by the judge. The facts of a case are central to every step in the IRAC. It is from the facts that the issues are identified. It is the facts that lead to the identification of the most appropriate rules, and the rules which lead to the most useful way of construing the facts. Analysis requires the interpretation of facts and rules. The conclusion

4752-614: Is controlling, and a panel decision may only be overruled by the court of appeals sitting en banc (that is, all active judges of the court) or by a higher court. In these courts, the older decision remains controlling when an issue comes up the third time. Other courts, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (formerly known as Court of Customs and Patent Appeals) and the US Supreme Court , always sit en banc , and thus

4884-417: Is dangerous and thus, they have no reason to let you leave, moreover, you are contractually obligated to remain onboard. Therefore, this would not constitute false imprisonment. Additionally, when a claimant is following a work contract the employer may not be held for false imprisonment for not allowing them to leave early due to a breach of contract and potential losses that could result from them leaving. In

5016-495: Is destruction. What is true of the coffee urn is equally true of bottles of aerated water ( Torgesen v. Schultz , 192 N. Y. 156). We have mentioned only cases in this court. But the rule has received a like extension in our courts of intermediate appeal. In Burke v. Ireland (26 App. Div. 487), in an opinion by CULLEN, J., it was applied to a builder who constructed a defective building; in Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co. (96 App. Div. 169) to

5148-478: Is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is found that he had actually put the loaf of bread back and was not stealing. Person A sues the grocery store for false imprisonment . Would person A prevail in court? The issue here is whether person A could prevail in court by alleging that he was falsely imprisoned. Rules Most jurisdictions in the United States allow recovery for false imprisonment . The courts look at two elements in determining whether

5280-477: Is inferrable as a synthesis of the "thing of danger" principle stated in them, merely extending it to "foreseeable danger" even if "the purposes for which it was designed" were not themselves "a source of great danger". MacPherson takes some care to present itself as foreseeable progression, not a wild departure. Cardozo continues to adhere to the original principle of Winterbottom , that "absurd and outrageous consequences" must be avoided, and he does so by drawing

5412-446: Is largely based on precedent —judicial rulings made in previous similar cases. The presiding judge determines which precedents to apply in deciding each new case. Common law is deeply rooted in stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where courts follow precedents established by previous decisions. When a similar case has been resolved, courts typically align their reasoning with the precedent set in that decision. However, in

IRAC - Misplaced Pages Continue

5544-539: Is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right." This ability to predict gives more freedom to come close to the boundaries of the law. For example, many commercial contracts are more economically efficient, and create greater wealth, because the parties know ahead of time that the proposed arrangement, though perhaps close to the line, is almost certainly legal. Newspapers, taxpayer-funded entities with some religious affiliation, and political parties can obtain fairly clear guidance on

5676-611: Is not false imprisonment. Such as in Bird v Jones [1845] where the claimant wanted to walk over Hammersmith bridge but the defendant had cordoned off the public footpath, however, this did not constitute false imprisonment because, through using a longer route, the claimant could have still reached their destination. Therefore, if there is a means of escape, this is not false imprisonment. There must be no reasonable means of escape and you may be compensated for any damages caused in order for you to escape reasonably. However, if you have not taken

5808-399: Is not unlawful to refuse to open a train door when the train is on a bridge, even though the passenger is thereby restricted inside the train. Likewise, a master of a ship, or the pilot of a plane can detain people during a voyage or flight when they have a reasonable cause or grounds to believe it necessary for the safety of their other passengers. Suddenly saying "I would like to leave now"

5940-424: Is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy . Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps , that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. In contrast to common law incrementalism,

6072-558: Is that legislatures may take away common law rights, but modern jurisprudence will look for the statutory purpose or legislative intent and apply rules of statutory construction like the plain meaning rule to reach decisions. As the United States Supreme Court explained in United States v Texas , 507 U.S. 529 (1993): Just as longstanding is the principle that "[s]tatutes which invade the common law ... are to be read with

6204-418: Is thereby restricted. For example, in the case of Meering v Grahame-White Aviation [1918] the claimant was told to stay in an office because property was going missing and if they tried to leave the office they would have been stopped. This was held to be a false imprisonment even though the claimant did not know they were being imprisoned. Can the tort of false imprisonment be committed by omission? In

6336-504: Is to injure or destroy. But whatever the rule in Thomas v. Winchester may once have been, it has no longer that restricted meaning. A scaffold ( Devlin v. Smith , supra) is not inherently a destructive instrument. It becomes destructive only if imperfectly constructed. A large coffee urn ( Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co. , supra) may have within itself, if negligently made, the potency of danger, yet no one thinks of it as an implement whose normal function

6468-501: The Termes de la Ley , 'imprisonment is the restraint of a man's liberty, whether it be in the open field, or in the stocks, or in the cage in the streets or in a man's own house, as well as in the common gaole'. Imprisonment does not have to involve seizure of the claimant; touching and informing him that he is under arrest are sufficient. Tagging and an imposed curfew can be false imprisonment. The restriction must also be total, meaning that

6600-605: The High Court of Justiciary has this power instead (except on questions of law relating to reserved matters such as devolution and human rights). From 1966 to 2009, this power lay with the House of Lords , granted by the Practice Statement of 1966. Canada's federal system, described below , avoids regional variability of federal law by giving national jurisdiction to both layers of appellate courts. The reliance on judicial opinion

6732-623: The jury , ordeals , the penalty of outlawry , and writs – all of which were incorporated into the Norman common law – is still a subject of much discussion. Additionally, the Catholic Church operated its own court system that adjudicated issues of canon law . The main sources for the history of the common law in the Middle Ages are the plea rolls and the Year Books . The plea rolls, which were

SECTION 50

#1732863262067

6864-468: The later decision controls. These courts essentially overrule all previous cases in each new case, and older cases survive only to the extent they do not conflict with newer cases. The interpretations of these courts—for example, Supreme Court interpretations of the constitution or federal statutes—are stable only so long as the older interpretation maintains the support of a majority of the court. Older decisions persist through some combination of belief that

6996-409: The 1180s) from his Curia Regis to hear the various disputes throughout the country, and return to the court thereafter. The king's itinerant justices would generally receive a writ or commission under the great seal. They would then resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and

7128-632: The 13th century to the 17th, can be viewed online at the Anglo-American Legal Tradition site (The O'Quinn Law Library of the University of Houston Law Center). The doctrine of precedent developed during the 12th and 13th centuries, as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent . The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning . The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases ),

7260-431: The 366th day? In order to answer the legal question (issue), one would move to the next letter in the IRAC acronym: "R", which stands for Rule. The Rule 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 common law jurisdiction derive from court case precedent and statute . The information included in

7392-530: The Great Hall of the king's Palace of Westminster , permanently except in the vacations between the four terms of the Legal year . Judge-made common law operated as the primary source of law for several hundred years, before Parliament acquired legislative powers to create statutory law . In England, judges have devised a number of rules as to how to deal with precedent decisions . The early development of case-law in

7524-419: The IRAC is a very useful tool. The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categories. The first category are those who object to using an IRAC because of its strict and unwieldy format. Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREAC, TREACC, CRuPAC , ISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon

7656-571: The Pacific. Today, approximately one-third of the world's population lives in common law jurisdictions or in mixed legal systems that integrate common law and civil law. According to Black's Law Dictionary , common law is "the body of law derived from judicial decisions , rather than from statutes or constitutions ." Legal systems that rely on common law as precedent are known as "common law jurisdictions," while those that do not are referred to as " civil law " or " code " jurisdictions. Until

7788-425: The United States' commercial center, New York common law has a depth and predictability not (yet) available in any other jurisdictions of the United States. Similarly, American corporations are often formed under Delaware corporate law , and American contracts relating to corporate law issues ( merger and acquisitions of companies, rights of shareholders, and so on) include a Delaware choice of law clause, because of

7920-548: The United States. Commercial contracts almost always include a "choice of law clause" to reduce uncertainty. Somewhat surprisingly, contracts throughout the world (for example, contracts involving parties in Japan, France and Germany, and from most of the other states of the United States) often choose the law of New York, even where the relationship of the parties and transaction to New York is quite attenuated. Because of its history as

8052-416: The activity in question took place in an environment where stealing is common. Crowded public places and shops are considered to be more justifiable places where a person could have just cause for reasonable suspicion in comparison to private property or sparsely populated areas. In looking at the other element of authority, the courts tend to favor people directly charged with handling security as people with

SECTION 60

#1732863262067

8184-422: The applicant was injured through trying to escape using reasonable methods they may be entitled to compensatory damages . When law enforcement authorities violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution by detaining people without sufficient reason or disregarding due process, then it undermines the country's judicial system. Such actions violate individuals' rights while gravely damaging public trust in

8316-412: The application of law to specific facts. The United States federal courts are divided into twelve regional circuits, each with a circuit court of appeals (plus a thirteenth, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit , which hears appeals in patent cases and cases against the federal government, without geographic limitation). Decisions of one circuit court are binding on the district courts within

8448-431: The authority to detain a person in comparison to private individuals. The courts have made exceptions in the favor of the person conducting the detention if he is a shopkeeper. This special privilege is called the shopkeeper's privilege . In general the element of authority is usually seen as one part of a two part legal justification for legally justifiable detention. For example in cases involving detention by an officer of

8580-422: The boundaries within which their freedom of expression rights apply. In contrast, in jurisdictions with very weak respect for precedent, fine questions of law are redetermined anew each time they arise, making consistency and prediction more difficult, and procedures far more protracted than necessary because parties cannot rely on written statements of law as reliable guides. In jurisdictions that do not have

8712-475: The case of R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans , where the claimant should be released from prison and they weren't, due to a genuine mistake meaning they were held in prison for longer, this was still held to be false imprisonment. This can be looked at as consent, therefore, the imprisonment is not unlawful nor false imprisonment, for example, when flying, you consent to be on the plane for that duration of time through contract. The courts have said it

8844-475: The case of Herd v Weardale Steel Coal where the claimant was in a mine, they were working and they wanted to leave the mine. The employer refused to let them leave at that time and the court held that the employer was under no obligation to allow them to do so. Under English law , police have the right to arrest under a warrant issued by a magistrate, and following conditions set out in PACE Code G. Or without

8976-430: The checkout without paying. The security attendant now has to act because he has been charged with the security of the store and he has just cause. The security attendant performs the investigation after he puts person A in detention and it takes two hours. Two hours might seem like an unreasonable amount of time but given the fact that person A was unresponsive and uncooperative it seems to be reasonable. It also seems as if

9108-399: The circuit and on the circuit court itself, but are only persuasive authority on sister circuits. District court decisions are not binding precedent at all, only persuasive. Most of the U.S. federal courts of appeal have adopted a rule under which, in the event of any conflict in decisions of panels (most of the courts of appeal almost always sit in panels of three), the earlier panel decision

9240-527: The claimant is restricted to an area delimited by the defendant. The larger the area, the less likely the claimant will be deemed to be imprisoned. For example, confining a person to a house would constitute the tort of false imprisonment. However, confining someone to the land mass of the USA would not. Therefore, false imprisonment is not just about locking someone within a room, the following examples have all been found to constitute false imprisonment: Finally, where

9372-446: The claimant's freedom of movement totally. During which there is no time limit, false imprisonment could occur for seconds and still be false imprisonment. Any restraint of the liberty of a free man will be an imprisonment. An example of reckless imprisonment may be a janitor locking up a school for the night, knowing that someone might still be inside, but without bothering to check. Whereas, regarding intention, intention to imprison

9504-860: The common law, or legislatively overrule the common law. Common law still has practical applications in some areas of law. Examples are contract law and the law of torts . At earlier stages in the development of modern legal systems and government, courts exercised their authority in performing what Roscoe Pound described as an essentially legislative function. As legislation became more comprehensive, courts began to operate within narrower limits of statutory interpretation . Jeremy Bentham famously criticized judicial lawmaking when he argued in favor of codification and narrow judicial decisions. Pound comments that critics of judicial lawmaking are not always consistent - sometimes siding with Bentham and decrying judicial overreach, at other times unsatisfied with judicial reluctance to sweep broadly and employ case law as

9636-415: The consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. ... There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable. Cardozo's new "rule" exists in no prior case, but

9768-411: The court." After a motion by Prosecutor Gilbert, Special Judge Steve Fleece ordered Hoffman released and said Hoffman's incarceration was "a big screw up". In a Louisiana case in the United States, a pharmacist and his pharmacy were found liable by a trial court for false imprisonment. They stalled for time and instructed a patient to wait while simultaneously and without the patient's knowledge calling

9900-462: The criminal justice process. Finally, if the claimant suffered an 'affront to their dignity', they may be awarded aggravated damages (these are very rare). For example, in the case of Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd the sailor was confined to his quarters and accused of child molestation but with 'no vestige of grounds in support', this was held to be false imprisonment and aggravated damages were available due to this causing humiliation and injury to

10032-516: The decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as stare decisis (also commonly known as precedent) developed, whereby a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. Once judges began to regard each other's decisions to be binding precedent,

10164-537: The deep body of law in Delaware on these issues. On the other hand, some other jurisdictions have sufficiently developed bodies of law so that parties have no real motivation to choose the law of a foreign jurisdiction (for example, England and Wales, and the state of California), but not yet so fully developed that parties with no relationship to the jurisdiction choose that law. Outside the United States, parties that are in different jurisdictions from each other often choose

10296-560: The dog leash violation. In a Clark County, Indiana Circuit Court case, Destiny Hoffman was jailed for 154 days, during which "no hearing was conducted to determine the validity of such sanction and the defendant was not represented by counsel" according to deputy county prosecutor Michaelia Gilbert. An order by Judge Jerry Jacobi in the Clark County Circuit Court case was supposed to be a 48-hour jail stay for Hoffman, pending drug evaluation and treatment, "until further order of

10428-485: The early 20th century, common law was widely considered to derive its authority from ancient Anglo-Saxon customs. Well into the 19th century, common law was still defined as an ancient, unwritten law in legal dictionaries including Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary . The term "judge-made law" was introduced by Jeremy Bentham as a criticism of this pretense of the legal profession but acceptance of William Blackstone 's declaratory theory of common law

10560-494: The emergence of a consensus from a multitude of particularized prior decisions". Justice Cardozo noted the "common law does not work from pre-established truths of universal and inflexible validity to conclusions derived from them deductively", but "[i]ts method is inductive, and it draws its generalizations from particulars". The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason

10692-409: The facts of the matter from both sides while sticking to the rules before coming to a decision. 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. Conclusion

10824-427: The first factor of the element of just cause, reasonable suspicion. The second factor of the element of just cause is the environment. The activity takes place in a grocery store. A grocery store is usually a place where shoplifters and other thieves operate regularly. This reduces the burden of just cause placed on the person performing the detention. The security attendant has to be unusually vigilant and suspicious of

10956-452: The format. A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning. It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating

11088-582: The general public. After the American Revolution, Massachusetts became the first state to establish an official Reporter of Decisions. As newer states needed law, they often looked first to the Massachusetts Reports for authoritative precedents as a basis for their own common law. The United States federal courts relied on private publishers until after the Civil War, and only began publishing as

11220-454: The government. Eyres (a Norman French word for judicial circuit, originating from Latin iter ) are more than just courts; they would supervise local government, raise revenue, investigate crimes, and enforce feudal rights of the king. There were complaints of the eyre of 1198 reducing the kingdom to poverty and Cornishmen fleeing to escape the eyre of 1233. Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat

11352-419: The gradual change that typifies evolution of the common law is the gradual change in liability for negligence. The traditional common law rule through most of the 19th century was that a plaintiff could not recover for a defendant's negligent production or distribution of a harmful instrumentality unless the two were parties to a contract ( privity of contract ). Thus, only the immediate purchaser could recover for

11484-456: The judgment, because it believed the elements of false imprisonment were not met. This tort again falls under the umbrella term "trespass to the person" alongside "battery and assault". The definition of false imprisonment under UK law and legislation is the "Unlawful imposition or constraint of another's freedom of movement from a particular place." False imprisonment is where the defendant intentionally or recklessly, and unlawfully, restricts

11616-486: The law is" in a given situation. First, one must ascertain the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case. More recent decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts. Finally, one integrates all

11748-531: The law of England and Wales, particularly when the parties are each in former British colonies and members of the Commonwealth. The common theme in all cases is that commercial parties seek predictability and simplicity in their contractual relations, and frequently choose the law of a common law jurisdiction with a well-developed body of common law to achieve that result. Likewise, for litigation of commercial disputes arising out of unpredictable torts (as opposed to

11880-420: The law required that a lawsuit had to be filed within one year of an allegedly negligent act. If the 365th day falls on a Sunday, then the issue would be whether or not the law counts weekends as part of its computation of the one-year time limit. Would the plaintiff have to file by the preceding Friday? Would the law excuse the weekend and consider a Monday filing to be timely, even though that would technically be

12012-405: The law, courts have ruled that the officer has to have both just cause and authority. Authority in itself is not enough. The same reasoning applies to all detaining individuals. Exceptions are made in the case where a person of authority has to conduct an investigation with just cause and courts usually grant a reasonable amount of time in detention for this purpose. Here the reasonable amount of time

12144-422: The legislative process is very difficult to get started, as the work begins much earlier than just introducing a bill. Once the legislation is introduced, the process to getting it passed is long, involving the committee system, debate, the potential of conference committee, voting, and President approval. Because of the involved process, many pieces must fall into place in order for it to be passed. One example of

12276-420: The legislature has had the foresight and diligence to address the precise set of facts applicable to a particular situation. For that reason, civil law statutes tend to be somewhat more detailed than statutes written by common law legislatures—but, conversely, that tends to make the statute more difficult to read. The common law—so named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across England—originated in

12408-473: The lines drawn and reasons given, and determines "what the law is". Then, one applies that law to the facts. In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the simplified system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction , and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in

12540-422: The majority of circumstances/generally, the answer is no, as there must be a positive act. Yet, in certain circumstances defendants may still be found liable if they are under a positive obligation to release the claimant and the claimant has the legal right to be released. In the case of Prison Officer's Association v Iqbal where a defendant could not leave their cell due to the prison officers being on strike, it

12672-421: The majority ruling, or simply persuasive. There are occasions when rules are adopted on the basis they are the only clearly articulated rules on the issue, in spite of being minority decisions, obiter dicta , and from lower courts, in other jurisdictions, which have never been contradicted. The rules help make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand using the facts of the case. The rules section needs to be

12804-471: The manufacturer of an elevator; in Davies v. Pelham Hod Elevating Co. (65 Hun, 573; affirmed in this court without opinion, 146 N. Y. 363) to a contractor who furnished a defective rope with knowledge of the purpose for which the rope was to be used. We are not required at this time either to approve or to disapprove the application of the rule that was made in these cases. It is enough that they help to characterize

12936-465: The more controversial clauses of the Constitutions of Clarendon . Henry nevertheless continued to exert influence in any ecclesiastical case which interested him and royal power was exercised more subtly with considerable success. The English Court of Common Pleas was established after Magna Carta to try lawsuits between commoners in which the monarch had no interest. Its judges sat in open court in

13068-424: The most important factor in the boundary would be the nature of the thing sold and the foreseeable uses that downstream purchasers would make of the thing. The example of the evolution of the law of negligence in the preceding paragraphs illustrates two crucial principles: (a) The common law evolves, this evolution is in the hands of judges, and judges have "made law" for hundreds of years. (b) The reasons given for

13200-560: The official court records for the Courts of Common Pleas and King's Bench, were written in Latin. The rolls were made up in bundles by law term: Hilary, Easter, Trinity, and Michaelmas, or winter, spring, summer, and autumn. They are currently deposited in the UK National Archives , by whose permission images of the rolls for the Courts of Common Pleas, King's Bench, and Exchequer of Pleas, from

13332-579: The old decision is right, and that it is not sufficiently wrong to be overruled. In the jurisdictions of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland , since 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has the authority to overrule and unify criminal law decisions of lower courts; it is the final court of appeal for civil law cases in all three of the UK jurisdictions, but not for criminal law cases in Scotland, where

13464-610: The ordinary usage to be contemplated by the vendor". However, held the Cadillac court, "one who manufactures articles dangerous only if defectively made, or installed, e.g., tables, chairs, pictures or mirrors hung on the walls, carriages, automobiles, and so on, is not liable to third parties for injuries caused by them, except in case of willful injury or fraud". Finally, in the famous case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. , in 1916, Judge Benjamin Cardozo for New York's highest court pulled

13596-512: The period from the 13th to the 16th centuries, when the common law developed into recognizable form. The term "common law" is often used as a contrast to Roman-derived "civil law", and the fundamental processes and forms of reasoning in the two are quite different. Nonetheless, there has been considerable cross-fertilization of ideas, while the two traditions and sets of foundational principles remain distinct. False imprisonment False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when

13728-429: The police. The pharmacist was suspicious of the patient's prescription, which her doctor had called in previously. When the police arrived, they arrested the patient. While the patient was in jail, the police verified with her doctor that the prescription was authentic and that it was meant for her. After this incident, the patient sued the pharmacy and its employees. She received $ 20,000 damages. An appeals court reversed

13860-571: The power of canonical (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously with Thomas Becket , the Archbishop of Canterbury . The murder of the archbishop gave rise to a wave of popular outrage against the King. International pressure on Henry grew, and in May 1172 he negotiated a settlement with the papacy in which the King swore to go on crusade as well as effectively overturned

13992-649: The practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries following the Norman Conquest in 1066. Prior to the Norman Conquest, much of England's legal business took place in the local folk courts of its various shires and hundreds . A variety of other individual courts also existed across the land: urban boroughs and merchant fairs held their own courts, and large landholders also held their own manorial and seigniorial courts as needed. The degree to which common law drew from earlier Anglo-Saxon traditions such as

14124-420: The pre-Norman system of local customs and law varying in each locality was replaced by a system that was (at least in theory, though not always in practice) common throughout the whole country, hence the name "common law". The king's object was to preserve public order, but providing law and order was also extremely profitable – cases on forest use as well as fines and forfeitures can generate "great treasure" for

14256-528: The presentation of evidence , a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems. At the time, royal government centered on the Curia Regis (king's court), the body of aristocrats and prelates who assisted in the administration of the realm and the ancestor of Parliament , the Star Chamber , and Privy Council . Henry II developed the practice of sending judges (numbering around 20 to 30 in

14388-444: The prospective choice of law clauses in contracts discussed in the previous paragraph), certain jurisdictions attract an unusually high fraction of cases, because of the predictability afforded by the depth of decided cases. For example, London is considered the pre-eminent centre for litigation of admiralty cases. This is not to say that common law is better in every situation. For example, civil law can be clearer than case law when

14520-655: The public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of " kettling ", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention

14652-427: The right to detain individuals based on probable cause that a crime has been committed and the individual was involved, or based on reasonable suspicion that the individual has been, is, or is about to be engaged in a criminal activity. To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: Many jurisdictions in the United States recognize the common law known as shopkeeper's privilege under which

14784-407: The rules and explaining the rules for further clarity. The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends to lead to overwriting, and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis. This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer. The importance of an open format amiable to

14916-399: The rules section depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to include rules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are in holding , and binding based on the authority of the hierarchy of the court, being ratio decidendi , and being

15048-409: 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. It is useful to think like a lawyer, arguing

15180-435: The same jurisdiction, and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law , statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. cautioned that "the proper derivation of general principles in both common and constitutional law ... arise gradually, in

15312-500: The security attendant extra leeway in detaining people in whom he has reasonable suspicion. Most courts would lean heavily towards the shopkeeper because person A was on the property of the grocery store and thus could be subjected to extra scrutiny given the long history of the shopkeeper's privilege in common law. Conclusion Person A would most likely not prevail in the courts because the security attendant does not satisfy either element of false imprisonment. The detention of person A

15444-413: The security attendant was doing his due diligence as he releases person A as soon as the facts are established and it is shown that person A was not stealing the loaf of bread. Finally we have to look at the fact that since the activity took place in a grocery store, the shopkeeper's privilege applies directly to the security attendant in charge of securing the store and its property. This privilege gives

15576-492: The statute did not affirmatively require statutory solemnization and was silent as to preexisting common law. Court decisions that analyze, interpret and determine the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies are sometimes called "interstitial common law," which includes judicial interpretation of fundamental laws, such as the US Constitution , of legislative statutes, and of agency regulations , and

15708-411: The statute must "speak directly" to the question addressed by the common law. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham , 436 U. S. 618, 625 (1978); Milwaukee v. Illinois , 451 U. S. 304, 315 (1981). As another example, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1877, held that a Michigan statute that established rules for solemnization of marriages did not abolish pre-existing common-law marriage , because

15840-423: The suspect is shoplifting and, if so, whether the shoplifted item can be reclaimed. The shopkeeper's privilege is not as broad as police officer's privilege to arrest. The shopkeeper may only detain the suspect for a comparatively short period of time. If a shopkeeper unreasonably detains the suspect, uses excessive force to detain the suspect, or fails to notify the police within a reasonable time after detaining

15972-400: The suspect, then the detention may constitute false imprisonment and may result in an award of damages . In jurisdictions without the privilege, detention must meet the jurisdiction's standards for a citizen's arrest . This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege,

16104-459: The thirteenth century has been traced to Bracton 's On the Laws and Customs of England and led to the yearly compilations of court cases known as Year Books , of which the first extant was published in 1268, the same year that Bracton died. The Year Books are known as the law reports of medieval England, and are a principal source for knowledge of the developing legal doctrines, concepts, and methods in

16236-405: The trend of judicial thought. We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas v. Winchester is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of

16368-413: The writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus. A generic IRAC on a law school exam would consist of an answer to a question. The following example demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to a question. Person "A" walks into a grocery store and picks up

16500-411: Was approached by the officer for not leashing her dog; she was arrested after being asked to produce her driver's license and failing to do so. She won her claim, despite having lost the case of not leashing her dog. The court reasoned that the officer did not have proper legal authority in arresting her, because he arrested her for not producing her driver's license (which itself was legal) as opposed to

16632-497: Was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts , including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence , and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts . The type of procedure practiced in common law courts is known as the adversarial system ; this is also a development of the common law. In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating

16764-444: Was held at [61] that: 'It seems to me that the general rule that an omission or refusal to release the claimant from confinement will not amount to false imprisonment should not be overridden save in circumstances where the claimant has a legal right to be released and the defendant is under a positive obligation to release the claimant.' Thus, the defendants were liable for omission under the tort of false imprisonment. Moreover, in

16896-434: Was held to be an unreasonable use of force and thus, the defence of illegality was void. If the false imprisonment was for a minimal amount of time, the claimant could be entitled to nominal damages , as this tort is actionable per se . In Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014] where someone was stopped in a doorway for a couple of seconds this was still held to be false imprisonment. Additionally, if

17028-639: Was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights . The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that 'even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.' Defences for false imprisonment include consent and performance of

17160-472: Was legal because the security attendant had both just cause and authority. Additionally, the shopkeeper's privilege further solidifies the legality of the detention. Person A, therefore, has no recourse under the law. Common law Common law (also known as judicial precedent , judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes , it

17292-418: Was near universal for centuries. Many notable writers, including A. V. Dicey , William Markby , Oliver Wendell Holmes , John Austin , Roscoe Pound , and Ezra Ripley Thayer , eventually adopted the modern definition of common law as "case law" or ratio decidendi , which serves as binding precedent . In a common law jurisdiction several stages of research and analysis are required to determine "what

17424-541: Was subsequently released upon this determination of fact. A court looking at these facts would try to apply the two elements of false imprisonment. The first element of false imprisonment is just cause. The first factor of just cause is reasonable suspicion. The security attendant saw person A pick up a loaf of bread and stuff it beneath his jacket. This is an uncommon action as most grocery shop customers usually do not hide produce under their personal belongings. The security attendant, therefore, has reasonable suspicion because

#66933