Reference no: EM131165961

Your cases should be analyzed using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method. Most of the cases I will be assigning do not include a court decision, so I am asking for your conclusion. Your grade will be based more on your issue, rule, and application than on your conclusion. Please format your analyses as follows and see the example below:

Citation: This should be copied from the question.

Issue: What is the basic issue? Include some facts in this section.

Rule: What rule of law applies to the abovementioned issue?

Application: Apply the rule of law to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion: Draw your conclusion based on the above application.

Up to 4 points can be taken off for format, neatness, grammar, spelling, etc.

*See the PowerPoint (which contains audio) for a further description of this process.

Sample IRAC

Here is what a case will look like when you open it on MyCMU:

Douglas Tart received serious injuries after ingesting a pharmaceutical that his wife bought in a North Carolina pharmacy. The company that made and sold the drug, CKI, was located in Florida. The Tarts brought suit in a North Carolina court against CKI, but CKI asked for the case to be dismissed because of inappropriate jurisdiction (they were located in Florida). Does the North Carolina court have personal jurisdiction? Tart v. Prescott's Pharmacies, Inc., 118 N.C.App. 516, 456 S.E.2nd 121 (1995)

Here is how it will look when you submit your case study:

Tart v. Prescott's Pharmacies, Inc., 118 N.C.App. 516, 456 S.E.2nd 121 (1995)

Issue:

Douglas Tart was injured by a drug which his wife bought in a North Carolina pharmacy. When the Tarts brought suit in a North Carolina court, the company that made the drug, CKI, claimed that North Carolina did not have personal jurisdiction over them because they were located in Florida.

Rule:

The Long Arm Statute

Application:

A court can exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant under the long arm statute if the court can show that the defendant had minimum contacts in the state to justify jurisdiction. Because the drug was being sold in a North Carolina pharmacy (and possibly other states as well), the corporation was making minimum contacts.

Conclusion:

The North Carolina court does have personal jurisdiction over CKI.