 As part of this legal environment of business course, you're going to be required to answer some case problems. And the way that those case problems should be answered is using the Iraq method. And you've probably never heard of the Iraq method, so I wanted to take some time here with this little video to explain what it is so that you'll know what I'm looking for. So basically the Iraq method is a method that attorneys or lawyers use in legal writing. And it really gives you a roadmap for how to answer these case problems. So I'm going to break it down for you. Let's say we have this question. One who lives in Sacramento, California was seriously injured near his home when an out-of-state car driven by Bill from Seattle, Washington negligently struck him. One wished to sue Bill for $200,000, the amount of his injuries. And we want to discuss which court or courts have jurisdiction over this matter. Which court should one file his lawsuit? So this is sort of the case problem that we have, and we've got to break it down and answer it using the Iraq method. So the Iraq method has four parts. The issue, the rule, the analysis, and the conclusion. And so I'll be looking in your answers to make sure you've got all four of those parts in your answers to the case problems. And it's okay if you want to in your answer to break it out kind of like it is here. But the first thing you want to make sure you do is state the legal issue presented by the fact scenario. And this should be no more than one or two sentences. What I don't want to see in the issue section is just somebody repeating all the facts from the case problem. I know what the facts from the case problem are. I don't need to see all the facts repeated. The legal issue is going to state what is the legal question that applies to the scenario. In the rule section, you're going to state or define the legal principle that applies to the issue given. And so the rule might be a definition of a legal term that you could take maybe straight out of the textbook or put it in your own words. Some legal concepts have elements that have to be addressed. For instance, if the problem dealt with negligence, you would want to address a state that the rule of negligence, there are four elements, duty, breach, causation, and damages, and talk about those. So in the rule, you're just stating, explaining the legal principle that applies. In the analysis section, you're going to discuss how does that rule, how does that legal principle actually relate to the issue raised in the fact scenario. So if you were talking about negligence, you would want to explain, did, why did someone owe a duty or not? Did they breach it or not? Was there causation or not? Were there damages or not? And you'd want to discuss and explain all of that in your analysis section. And that should really be the most lengthy part of your answer. And then once you've gone through your analysis, it should lead you to a conclusion and just state your conclusion based on the analysis. Again, that should be no more than a sentence or two. I'm much more concerned with how thoroughly you analyze the problem and whether you state the correct rule than I am with the conclusion. So spend the bulk of your time on that rule and the analysis and making sure you get those correct. So here's a sample answer to the jurisdiction problem that we had. See, in the issue, I've not given a summary of the facts. I've just stated the legal question raised. Which court or courts have jurisdiction to decide on's case? That's really what the issue is. And with most of the case problems, it's going to give you the issue or you should be able to pick it out pretty easily. Then for the rule, I've defined what jurisdiction is and I've defined the difference between personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. So I've just given those definitions. And then in the analysis, I've spent some time looking at it from the state court perspective, going through the personal jurisdiction and the subject matter jurisdiction. And then I've taken another paragraph to look at it in the federal courts. Again, looking at the subject matter jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction and describing how the facts apply to those concepts. And so you see how that analysis is the most lengthy part of the answer. And in the analysis is where you're going to really pull in some of those key facts from the case problem that you think are relevant and explain how they apply, how the law applies to those facts. And then you see my conclusion there. And obviously for your answer, you would want to have a more clear conclusion. But what I'm saying here is that, you know, I'm not as concerned with your conclusion. You may reach the wrong, I think the wrong conclusion, but if you've done a good analysis and you've identified the correct rule, you're going to get the bulk of the points. So this just gives you a sort of a model that you can go through and follow as you try to answer these case problems. Just use that as a roadmap and you can break your answers out like I have here that actually makes it easier for me to grade. But just make sure somewhere you've stated the issue, you've identified the rule, the legal principle, or definitions that apply that you've analyzed it, explained and discussed how the facts apply to that particular law or rule, and then just a sensor to stating your conclusion. So that is the IRAC method, and I hope you find that helpful and good luck with the case problems.