IRAC

TO: Bernie Franks, Director of Paralegals
FROM: your name
RE: IRAC Formula and Case Analysis to Answer Legal Questions
DATE:

Part 1: IRAC Formula

1. The initial in Lester v. Albers supermarket is I. the jury dismissed the case based on the fact of no legal issue to make the legal case for the employee.
2. The letter initial in A above represent the issue.
3. Lester v. Albers supermarket works as a case study for the study of the cases that follow. The importance of the case study as in the case of Lester vs Albers supermarket is to experiment between theories and come up with the new approaches. George (2019) states that case studies are essential in learning the latest cases and developing methods based on earlier occurrences.

Part 2: Case Analysis to Answer Legal Questions

1. In the case, Marla Jennings submits the claim in which she was called back into the store for a check-in which the security guard suspected that she took something from the store. In her presentation, she states that the security guard yelled at her to go back to the store. She willingly went back, and the search was done, and within three minutes, she walked out victorious for having no stolen item. The presentation of the case to have any legal issue must have an interception, which was never the case. Wood (2010), states that for the existence of false imprisonment, one must be forced against their will to do something. In the case of Lester vs Albers supermarket appeal, the defendant presented the situation in which she generally denied having stolen any material but willingly went back for the search. The defendant’s attorney rooted for error in the application of restraint which would qualify for unlawful or illegal. However, the court dismissed the claim based on unwillingness. In the same scenario and even lighter, the plaintiff presents the case of false imprisonment without restraint or unwillingness to go for the search. Ms. Jennings heard the call and yielded, coming back for the search willingly.

The plaintiff has no case of the security using threats or forces to get her back to the store for the search. Moreover, the duration for the search lasted for three minutes that do not qualify for the more extended time detention. In this case, there is no case to present.

2. Joe John submits that the security guard is more built than he is both in height and body weight. On suspecting John to take something from the store, the security guard came close and pushed John intercepting him and blocking the exit. John had no other option but to follow the command. The guard restrained John for thirty-five minutes before the search in which he found paints that are not sold in the store. The submission from John had elements of interception (Nemeth, 2017). From the description of the man, John had to oblige and get into the security office. From the case, John unwillingly got into the security office. Moreover, the Johns case presents the use of force and restraining of John for more than thirty-five minutes. The case study of Lester vs Albers supermarket dismissed the case based on unwillingness, time held and the use of force and restraining. In John’s case, all the elements apply and to qualify it more he had an item in the pocket that is not sold within the superstore. The evidence thus has the legal issue to sue the store.

Reference

George, A. L. (2019). Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison. In Alexander L. George: A Pioneer in Political and Social Sciences (pp. 191-214). Springer, Cham.

Nemeth, C. P. (2017). Private security and the law. CRC Press.Wood, R. W. (2010). Why the Stadnyk Case on False Imprisonment Is a Lemon. Tax Notes, 127(1).