class discussions. Good
ties that stimulate the mind.
IRAC Method
method. First, the facts of the case must be investigated and understood. Next,
Legal cases are usually examined using the following critical legal thinking
the legal issue that is to be answered must be identified and succinctly stated.
understood. Once the facts, law, and legal issue have been stated, critical think-
ing must be used in applying the law to the facts of the case. This requires
student-analyze, exam-
ine, evaluate, interpret, and apply the law to the facts of the case. Last, the
critical legal thinker must reach a conclusion and state his or her judgment.
In the study of law, this process is often referred to as the IRAC method (an
that the decision maker-whether a judge, juror, or
acronym that stands for issue, rule, application, and conclusion) as outlined in
the following:
I = What is the legal issue in the case?
R = What is the rule (law) of the case?
A = What is the court's analysis and rationale?
C = What was the conclusion or outcome of the case?
This text—whether in its print or electronic version-offers students ample
opportunities to develop and apply critical legal thinking. The text contains real-
world cases in which actual disputing parties have become embroiled. The law
cases are real, the parties are real, and the decisions reached by juries and judges
are real. Some cases are easier to decide than others, but all provide a unique set
of facts that require critical legal thinking to solve.
U.S. Supreme Court Case
So, let us examine how critical legal thinking is applied by the U.S. Supreme
Court. In the following case, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the consideration
of race in university admissions.
rs were
e found
Es testi-
is to be
home,
llisties
ce sta-
ce was
Salinas
inter-
How-
CHAPTER 2 Courts and Jurisdiction 43
The court had to address the issue of whether Maryland court, a federal court, asserting diversity of citizen-
had personal jurisdiction under its long-arm statute ship between the parties. Friend argued that because
over the Florida defendant Banks. Does the Maryland Hertz operated more than 270 rental car locations
court have personal jurisdiction over the Florida defen- and had more than 2,000 employees in California, it
dant? Did defendant Banks act ethically in this case? was a citizen of California; thus diversity of citizen-
Chanel, Inc. v. Banks, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 135374 ship did not apply and the case could not be moved
(United States District Court for Maryland, 2010) to federal court but should be decided by a California
state court. Is Hertz Corporation a citizen of Califor-
2.8 Ethics Case Hertz Corporation is incorporated nia and subject to suit in state court? Was it ethical
in the state of Delaware and has its headquarters in for Hertz to deny citizenship in California when it had
the state of New Jersey. Melinda Friend, a California such a large presence in California with its 270 rental
citizen, sued the Hertz Corporation in California state car locations and more than 2,000 employees there?
court seeking damages for Hertz's alleged violation Hertz Corporation v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct.
of California's wage and hour laws. Hertz filed notice 1181, 2010 U.S. Lexis 1897 (Supreme Court of the
to move the case from state court to U.S. district United States, 2010)
match
alinas
ce let
ained,
linas.
s tes-
otgun
tgun,
The
sen-
that
ding
Notes
1. Book I, Chapter 8, Democracy in America.
2. Effective September 25, 1988, mandatory appeals were all
but eliminated, except for reapportionment cases and cases
brought under the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, anti-
trust laws, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act.
3. Prior to 1980, there was a minimum dollar-amount contro-
versy requirement of $10,000 to bring a federal question
action in federal court. This minimum amount was elimi-
nated by the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendment
Act of 1980, Public Law 96-486.
4. The amount was raised to $75,000 by the 1996 Federal
Courts Improvement Act. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).
5. 952 F.Supp. 1119 (U.S. District Court, Western District of
Pennsylvania).
puld
the
ver-
nas's
ti
his shold
not have been du
U.S. Supreme Court.
Three U.S. Supreme Court just
The Burger King Corporation, a competitor of
whereby
to "winners" who collell
high-value prizes. After being caugliu,
other members of the ring entered guilty pleas
nection with the conspiracy.
McDonald's, owns, operates, and franchises fast-food
restaurants. One franchisee is Phoenix of Broward, Inc.
(Phoenix), which operates a Burger King restaurant
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Phoenix brought a class
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of Burger
King franchises against McDonald's, alleging that
McDonald's engaged in false advertising in violation of
the federal Lanham Act when it advertised that players
had an equal chance of winning high-value prizes when
dissenting
precustodial interview. Four justices filed a
M
р!
o
dict of guilty, finding that the admission of Salinass
silence when asked about the shotgun shells did not
violate his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify
against himself because a defendant normally does
noncustodial interview. Two other justices upheld the
not invoke the privilege by remaining silent during a
nal conspiracy. Phoenix alleged that it suffered injuries that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit a prosecu-
in fact they did not because of the Jacobson's crimi- verdict of guilty but did so based on another reason,
tor from commenting on a defendant's silence during a
silence at a precustodial interview should not be admit-
opinion, finding that the evidence of the defendant's
Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corpora- ted into evidence. What kind of decision is this U.S.
tion, 441 F.Supp.2d 1241, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55112 Supreme Court decision? Does this decision establish
precedent? Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174, 2012 U.S.
Lexis 4697 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012)
a
of lost sales because of McDonald's false advertising
claims. McDonald's filed a motion to dismiss Phoenix's
lawsuit, asserting that Phoenix had no standing to sue.
Did plaintiff Phoenix have standing to sue McDonald's?
s
С
b
V
(United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, 2006)
S
t
(
1
Ethics Cases
Ethical
2.7 Ethics Case Chanel, Inc. is a corpo- Chanel filed a lawsuit in the U.S. district court in Mary-
rate entity duly organized under the laws land against defendant Ladawn Banks, a resident of
of the state of New York, with its principal place of busi- Florida. Chanel alleged that Banks owned and oper-
ness in New York City. Chanel is engaged in the busi- ated the fully interactive website www.lovenamebrands
ness of manufacturing and distributing throughout the .com, through which she sold handbags and wallets
world various luxury goods, including handbags, wal- bearing counterfeit trademarks identical to the reg-
lets, and numerous other products under the federally istered Chanel marks. The goods at issue in this case
registered trademark "Chanel" and monogram marks. were sold over the internet to a resident of Maryland.
17
CHAPTER 1 Legal Heritage and the Digital Age
CASE 1.1 U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE Affirmative Action in University Admissions
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
136 S.Ct. 2198, 2016 U.S. Lexis 4059 (2016)
Supreme Court of the United States
"A university may institute a race-conscious admis- the correct standard. On remand, the U.S. court
sions program as a means of obtaining the edu- of appeals applied that standard and determined
cational benefits that flow from student body that the admission process of the University con-
diversity."
formed to strict scrutiny. Fisher appealed to the U.S.
---Kennedy, Justice
Supreme Court.
Facts
Issue
The legislature of the state of Texas enacted the
Is the race-conscious admissions program at the
Top Ten Percent Law that guarantees college
University of Texas lawful under the Equal Protec-
admission to students who graduate from a Texas
tion Clause?
high school in the top 10 percent of their class.
Those students may choose to attend any of the Language of the U.S. Supreme Court
public universities in the state, including the Uni- Although admissions officers can consider
versity of Texas at Austin (University). The remain- race as a positive feature of a minority stu-
ing 25 percent of the incoming class is admitted dent's application, there is no dispute that
based on a combination of their Academic Index race is but a factor of a factor of a factor in the
(AI), which is calculated by combining an appli- holistic-review calculus. Furthermore, con-
cant's SAT score and academic performance in sideration of race is contextual and does not
high school, and Personal Achievement Index operate as a mechanical plus factor for under-
(PAI), which is a holistic review of the applicant's represented minorities.
essays, leadership and work experience, extracur- A university may institute a race-conscious
ricular activities, community service, and other admissions program as a means of obtain-
special characteristics. Race is given weight as a ing the educational benefits that flow from
factor within the PAI.
student body diversity. Enrolling a diverse
Petitioner Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian, applied for student body promotes cross-racial under-
admission to the University's 2008 freshman class. standing, helps to break down racial ste-
She was not in the top 10 percent of her high school reotypes, and enables students to better
class, so she was evaluated for admission through the understand persons of different races.
holistic review. Fisher's application was rejected by Equally important, student body diversity
the University. Fisher filed suit, alleging that the Uni- promotes learning outcomes, and better pre-
versity's consideration of race as part of its holistic- pares students for an increasingly diverse
review process disadvantaged her and other Cauca- workforce and society. All of these objec-
sian applicants in violation of the Equal Protection tives, as a general matter, mirror the "com-
Clause.
pelling interest" this Court has approved in
The U.S. district court entered summary judg- prior cases. Indeed, to compel universities
ment in the University's favor and the U.S. court of to admit students based on class rank alone
appeals affirmed. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court is in deep tension with the goal of educa-
stated that strict scrutiny should be applied in exam- tional diversity as this Court's cases have
ining the University's affirmative action admissions defined it.
process and that such policy must be tailored to The University has thus met its burden of
ensure that race plays no greater role than is neces- showing that the admissions policy it used at
sary to meet the University's compelling interest to the time it rejected petitioner Fisher's applica-
diversify its student body. The U.S. Supreme Court tion was narrowly tailored. In striking this
vacated the decision of the U.S. court of appeals sensitive balance, public universities, like the
because it had not used this standard and remanded States themselves, can serve as laboratories
the case to that court to evaluate the record under for experimentation
(continued)
nur
of par
at we nolu
Jagd read
inched
was un
than
I'50
"
18
PARTI Legal Environment of Business
Critical Legal Thinking Questions
Explain how race is considered in the holistic
approach to admissions used by the University of
Texas. Should affirmative action be recognized in
Er
university admissions?
Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the University
has met its burden of showing that the admissions
policy it used at the time it rejected petitioner Fish
er's application was narrowly tailored as required by
the strict serutiny test. The Supreme Court affirmed
the judgment of the U.S. court of appeals.
the Wom
who wer
ing facili
The law
employ
as bein
tection
the sta
Developing Skills for Your Career
1.6 Learn what skills you will gain through this text.
of
th
It i
me
juc
th
at
If you haven't yet decided on a major, you may be thinking that this sec.
on a career in business, the lessons you learn in this course will help you
tion isn't relevant to you. Let me assure you it is. Whether or not you plan
the aggregate of your educational experience that you will have the oppor-
(in business and/or in your life in many ways). Moreover, it is only through
tunity to develop many of the skills that employers have identified as criti.
you'll have the opportunity to develop and practice these skills through fea.
cal to success in the workplace. In this course, and specifically in this text
tures such as Critical Thinking Legal Questions and Information Technology
Law cases.
CL
Key Terms and Concepts
Administrative
Court of Chancery
agencies (13)
(equity court) (9)
Administrative rules and Critical Legal Studies
regulations (13)
School (7)
Analytical School (7) Critical legal thinking
Bill (12)
(15)
Brown v. Board of
English common
Education (5)
law (9)
Chamber (12)
Executive branch
Civil law (10)
(president) (11)
Code book (11)
Executive order (13)
Codified law (11)
French Civil Code of
Command School (7) 1804 (the Napoleonic
Committee (12)
Code) (10)
Conference committee (12) German Civil Code
Constitution of the
of 1896 (10)
United States of
Historical School (6)
America (11)
IRAC method (16)
Judicial branch
(courts) (11)
Judicial decision (14)
Jurisprudence (6)
Law (3)
Law and Economics
School (Chicago
School) (7)
Law courts (9)
Law Merchant (9)
Legislative branch
(Congress) (11)
Merchant Court (9)
Moral theory
Ordinance (12)
Precedent (14)
Romano-Germanic civil
law system (10)
Sociological School
(7)
Socratic method (16)
Stare decisis (14)
State constitution (11)
State statute (12)
Statute (11)
Subcommittee (12)
Treaties (11)
U.S. Congress (12)
U.S. House of
Representatives
(12)
U.S. Senate (12)
of law (6)
Natural Law
School (6)
Order (14)
MyLab Business Law
To complete the problems with the
go to
Discussion in the MyLab.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment