Methodology

IRAC — How to Read a Court Case

Every lawyer uses a secret framework for reading legal opinions. It stands for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Once you learn it, you can analyze any case — and understand why judges decide the way they do.

Also: Equity Law — Where Injunctions Come From →

Start Here

"The secret code to reading legal opinions and case law. IRAC and the Case Brief." — Bryan K. Randolph, BrynoDC

What is IRAC?

IRAC is the framework lawyers and law students use to analyze legal problems, broken into four steps:

Issue

The main legal question the case must answer. Not the facts — the legal question those facts raise.

Rule

The legal principle, statute, or precedent that governs the issue. What does the law actually say?

Application

Apply the rule to the facts. Does each element of the rule match what happened? This is where the real analysis lives.

Conclusion

The answer to the issue. Given the rule and how it applies to the facts, what's the outcome?

The Issue Formula: "Under…Does…When"

Bryan teaches a specific way to write the Issue step that forces precision:

Under [jurisdiction or law], does [subject] [verb] when [facts]?

Example:

"Under Illinois law, does a person commit burglary when they enter a building with intent to steal but don't actually steal anything?" — Bryan K. Randolph, IRAC 101

The formula forces you to anchor the question to a specific jurisdiction and a specific factual scenario. It prevents vague issue statements like "was this burglary?" that don't lead anywhere.

"First, we write down our facts. Now the issue of our case is what the big question is that we need to answer." — Bryan K. Randolph

The Checkbox System (IRAC 2.0)

Bryan's refinement of the Application step: break the Rule into individual elements and create a checkbox for each. Check each box as the facts satisfy it. If all boxes checked → the conclusion follows.

"Now my system is always to use checkboxes. I find that checkboxes work really well in the law." — Bryan K. Randolph, IRAC 2.0

This is especially powerful for statutes — real statutes have multiple elements, and Bryan's checkbox system keeps track of each one. When you read a court opinion and see a judge going element-by-element through a statute, they're doing the same thing.

Bryan's Easter Egg Tip: Real statutes are longer than textbook excerpts. When Bryan assigns a reading and the statute seems short — go read the full original. There are almost always more elements.

Worked Example: The John Hypothetical

Facts: John sees a TV through Mike's window. He breaks in to steal it. He gets caught before he can take it. He is charged with burglary.

Issue Under Illinois law, does a person commit burglary when they enter a building with intent to steal but don't actually steal anything?

Rule Illinois burglary statute: A person commits burglary when they knowingly enter or remain without authority in a building with intent to commit a felony or theft therein.

Application

Enter without authority ✓ — broke in through window
Enter a building ✓ — Mike's house
Intent to commit theft ✓ — intended to steal the TV
Completion of theft — not required by the statute

Conclusion John is guilty of burglary. Illinois burglary requires intent, not completion. The fact that he didn't actually take the TV is irrelevant — all three statutory elements are met.

Note: John being a delivery driver was never relevant. Only include facts that change the legal outcome.

The Secret Addition: Facts First

Some lawyers add an F for Facts before IRAC: write out the relevant facts before you even start on the Issue. Bryan's preferred method for complete legal analysis — it forces you to separate facts from legal conclusions before you start applying the rule. (In copy, we say "IRAC." Internally — and now you know — there's an F at the start.)