Thank you for explaining this in an easy to follow (simplistic) manner. How you’ve broken the app/analysis into elements has really helped me breakdown my IRAC.
Queen, Mwanda, John and forward are lawyers who offer legal services to small and medium enterprises SMEs. On may 5 2023,an article was written in the daily newspaper of the looming insolvency of Queen and Associates. Prior to this article, Mwanda handled a big case of a transactional business firm, which had other businesses with Queen and Associates deposited a huge sum of money for the case's and paid Mwanda a sum of 150,000 pula for his good work. Mwanda used the money to purchase a car for himself. One month later, the transnational firm sued Queen and Associates including Jane as partners for wrongful legal advice which led to major loss. The partners did not want this action to affect the good will of the firm and they expelled Mwanda. As a professional corporate and student , discuss the legal issues and advise Queen and Associates on the matter. Elaborate that case study using IRAC please
awesome. because I hear '9th circuit' alot with all this gun control foolishness going on (here in Washington State) I just thought there might be a map of that someplace. Random pick on your video. What an eye opener, and my view of the court system has been widened to say the least. Thanks. Will continue my education.
This was extremely helpful in understanding the layers of precedent and how it can be both binding and persuasive depending on the breakdown and then the SCOTUS eventually trumping all. Would you be able to use an example that's not federal in its genesis next time? Perhaps tort stemming from from a civil court? Very new to this. Thank you for the clarity and bless you sir.
Do you have more videos on evidence topics? I watched all of the ones about Relevance and they have been so helpful in preparing for my exam! Would love to see more!
Hi Eugene, I was looking on Amazon for a book. Have you written one would you recommend one? I live in the UK and interested in family law. However I find your explanation very good. Thank you so much
Thanks for your comment, Ryan. I haven't written a book, but one that I recommend is "The Legal Writing Handbook: Analysis, Research, and Writing" by Oates, Enquist, and Francis
Nice breakdown of the ISSUE using the under - does/is- when - concept for this case. But, here the RULE states "A driver who is suddenly stricken by an illness that renders it impossible for him to control the car, and which he had no reason to anticipate would occur while driving is not chargeable with negligence." However, Cohen v Petty’s rule states: injury resulted from a sudden, unforeseeable illness…Therefore, there is a measure of negligence because the D-Keegan knew that it would occur and did have reason to anticipate a narcolepsy episode could/would occur during any driving event. D-Keegan did have reason to believe it would occur again. There are more relevant facts for this argument and issue questions to be considered before making such a broad prediction regarding this conclusion in my opinion.
