Law School Study Guides
FIRAC Example: A Full Case Brief in FIRAC Format
What FIRAC stands for, when you'll use it, a complete FIRAC brief of a classic 1L Contracts case, how FIRAC differs from IRAC, and a blank FIRAC case brief template you can copy.
Last updated: October 2026.
What FIRAC Is
FIRAC is a five-part format for breaking down a court opinion. It takes the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) and puts a Facts section in front, so the brief records what happened and how the case got to this court before it gets to the law.
Facts
The facts the court relied on, plus the procedural history: who sued whom, for what, what the lower court did, and who appealed. Leave out background that didn't affect the outcome.
Issue
The legal question the court had to answer, written as a yes-or-no question that includes the key facts.
Rule
The legal principle the court applied, stated so it would work in the next case, with its source (case law, statute or Restatement).
Application
The court's reasoning: how it applied the rule to these facts, which facts mattered most, and why the losing side's arguments failed. Some professors call this step Analysis.
Conclusion
The holding (the court's answer to the issue) and the disposition: affirmed, reversed or remanded, and what happens next.
When FIRAC Is Used
- Case briefs. This is FIRAC's main job. A brief is a record of a decided case, and you can't follow the court's reasoning, or answer a cold call, without the facts and the procedural history. FIRAC makes you write them down first.
- Courses where procedural posture matters. In Civil Procedure especially, what happened below (a dismissal, a summary judgment, a jury verdict) shapes what the appellate court could decide. FIRAC's Facts section is where you capture it.
- Some exams. A few professors ask for FIRAC on exam answers. If yours does, keep the Facts part short and limited to the facts that matter for each issue, because the grader already has the fact pattern.
Briefing every case for class?
FIRAC Case Brief: Lucy v. Zehmer
Citation: 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) · Doctrine: mutual assent and the objective theory of contracts
A staple of 1L Contracts. The case turns on what the parties said and did, which makes it a good showcase for FIRAC's Facts section.
On the night of December 20, 1952, W. O. Lucy and A. H. Zehmer were drinking at a restaurant Zehmer operated. Lucy had tried to buy Zehmer's Ferguson farm, 471.6 acres in Dinwiddie County, years earlier. That night Lucy offered $50,000 for it. After discussing the deal, Zehmer wrote on the back of a restaurant check: "We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer." Zehmer's first draft was written in the singular; Lucy objected because he wanted Mrs. Zehmer to sign too, so Zehmer rewrote it, and both Zehmers signed. Lucy put the paper in his pocket and offered Zehmer $5 to bind the bargain, which Zehmer refused. The Zehmers later contended that the whole thing was a joke made while the two men were drinking.
The very next day Lucy arranged for his brother, J. C. Lucy, to put up half the money and take a half interest, and on Monday he hired a lawyer to examine the title. According to Lucy, Zehmer told him on the Tuesday night after the signing that he was not going to sell. After the title came back satisfactory, Lucy wrote on January 2 that he was ready to pay the price in cash and close. Zehmer replied by letter that he had never agreed or intended to sell.
Procedural history: The Lucys sued the Zehmers for specific performance in the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County. The trial court held that they had not established a right to specific performance and dismissed their bill. The Lucys appealed.
Is a signed agreement to sell land enforceable when the seller later claims he was only joking, if his words and conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe he meant it? (Secondary issue: was Zehmer too drunk to be bound?)
Whether a party agreed is judged by the outward expression of his intention, not by his secret, unexpressed intention: "The law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts." If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, show an intention to agree, his real but unexpressed state of mind does not matter, and he cannot claim he was merely jesting when his words and conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe he intended a real agreement. On intoxication, the question is whether the party was intoxicated to the extent of being unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he signed.
The court found that the evidence showed a serious business transaction, not a jest. The deal was discussed for forty minutes or more before it was signed. Lucy objected to the first draft because it was in the singular, and Zehmer rewrote it so his wife could sign. The parties discussed what the sale included, the writing provided for a title examination, and Lucy kept the signed paper without either Zehmer asking for it back.
Even assuming Zehmer privately meant it as a joke, Lucy did not understand it that way, and the evidence showed he was warranted in believing the deal was serious. Because Zehmer's words and acts reasonably signaled agreement, his unexpressed intention could not undo the contract.
On intoxication, the court found the evidence convincing that Zehmer was not so intoxicated that he could not understand the nature and consequences of the instrument he signed. Finally, the court found none of the grounds usually urged against specific performance: the $50,000 price was one Zehmer himself admitted was a good price.
Holding: Yes. The Zehmers made a valid, binding contract to sell the farm. Zehmer's claim that he was joking was no defense, because his outward words and conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe he was serious, and he was not too drunk to contract.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded for a decree requiring the Zehmers to perform the contract (specific performance).
Note how much of the work happens in Facts. The holding depends on what Zehmer said and did that night, so a brief that skipped the rewritten draft, the forty-minute discussion and Lucy keeping the signed paper could not explain why the court ruled the way it did. For a shorter standard brief of the same case, see our Lucy v. Zehmer library page.
FIRAC vs IRAC
The analysis is identical. The difference is whether the facts get their own section.
| FIRAC | IRAC | |
|---|---|---|
| Stands for | Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion | Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion |
| Facts | A required first section, with procedural history | Used inside the Application, not restated |
| Best fit | Briefing a decided case | Exam essays and in-class hypotheticals |
| Where the answer goes | Last (the holding) | Last |
Writing a memo instead of a brief? Memos usually put the answer first. See the CREAC memo example.
FIRAC Case Brief Template
Copy the text below into Word, Google Docs or your notes app and replace the bracketed placeholders. Prefer filling it in with a live preview? Use the interactive case brief template, which has a FIRAC mode.
FIRAC CASE BRIEF Case: [Party v. Party, Volume Reporter Page (Court Year)] Court and author: [Court that decided the case; judge who wrote the opinion] FACTS Key facts: [Only the facts the court relied on. Who did what, and the facts that made the difference.] Procedural history: [Who sued whom, for what. What the lower court decided. Who appealed.] ISSUE [The legal question the court answered, as a yes-or-no question that includes the key facts.] RULE [The legal principle the court applied, stated so it would work in the next case. Note its source: case, statute or Restatement.] APPLICATION [The court's reasoning: how it applied the rule to these facts, which facts mattered most, and why it rejected the losing side's arguments.] CONCLUSION Holding: [The court's answer to the issue, in one sentence.] Disposition: [Affirmed, reversed or remanded, and what happens next.] NOTES [Concurrences or dissents, why your professor assigned the case, questions to raise in class.]
Frequently Asked Questions
What does FIRAC stand for?+
What is the difference between FIRAC and IRAC?+
Where does procedural history go in a FIRAC brief?+
Can I use FIRAC on a law school exam?+
How long should a FIRAC case brief be?+
Should I brief cases in IRAC or FIRAC?+
Related Case Briefing Guides
- How to Brief a Case: Complete Guide. The full briefing process, course-specific tips and cold-call prep.
- Case Brief Example: 3 Worked Briefs. Full IRAC briefs in Torts, Contracts and Civil Procedure.
- Interactive Case Brief Template. Fill in IRAC or FIRAC with a live preview, then export to Word or PDF.
- IRAC Method Explained. Each IRAC element in depth, and when to use each variant.
- IRAC Example: 3 Worked IRACs. The same framework as a case brief, an exam essay and a memo.
- CREAC Example: A Full Legal Memo. The conclusion-first structure for legal writing memos.
- Free Case Brief Library. Worked briefs across every 1L subject.