Courts extend general rules without committing a fallacy when underlying conditions match.

Evidence

To avoid the fallacy of accident, a court must consider whether the facts of the case sub judice can be distinguished from the situations that gave rise to the general rule. Courts regularly extend rules to encompass a wider variety of situations, thereby creating a more general rule. Such generalization is hasty only if the original rule was based on specifics not present in the case to which the rule is being extended. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1112

Categorization

• XREF: XREF — connects to: Inductive generalization derives universal legal rules from repeated particular case outcomes — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 546; Courts must decide only the case before them, not hypothetical future cases — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1008; Inductive legal generalization produces workable probabilities rather than absolute truths. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 339 (+9 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1112

Broader Connections

• Rules necessarily overreach their justifications because of their intrinsic generality #contradicts (0.80) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 46
• Common law adjudication cycles induction and deduction into new rules #expands (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 168
• Common-law principles help judges determine if case differences are significant #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 715
• Judicial generalization and analogical reasoning constitute the process of induction #corroborates (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676
• Inductive legal generalization produces workable probabilities rather than absolute truths. #qualifies (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 339
• Legal reasoning yields probability rather than absolute mathematical truths #corroborates (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242
• Judicial rules should not be applied to dryly logical extremes #qualifies (0.40) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 144
• Denying the antecedent fails because alternative conditions can produce the consequent #corroborates (0.30) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 934