Every analogy relies on contested judgments of which similarities are relevant

Evidence

Yet although sellers of beer and sellers of guns may in some respects be similar, in others they are not. Beer and guns are, after all, very different, and so are the typical circumstances in which they are sold. So when there are obvious similarities and obvious differences, the lawyer who has chosen one analogy rather than some other is relying on something that makes the similarities relevantly similar. … Just as the lawyers for the Nazis argued that a judge who thought the civil rights demonstration cases had been rightly decided ought to rule for the Nazis because of the relevant similarities between the cases, the lawyers for Skokie argued that even a judge who thought the civil rights cases had been properly decided had ample grounds to refuse to analogize those cases to one involving Nazis because of the presence of relevant differences. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 176

Categorization

• XREF: The Skokie Nazi march case is a famous free-speech episode; connects to broader First Amendment and viewpoint-discrimination doctrine. — connects to: Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547; Valid legal analogies depend on relevant similarities rather than case quantities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 343; Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 608 (+6 more)
• SEED: A possible essay: why analogies feel natural yet are underpinned by invisible choices about relevance, using beer-guns and Nazi-civil-rights as paired examples.

Related

• Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception (similarity 0.82)
• Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities #qualifies (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547
• Advocates debate whether case factual similarities are legally material #exemplifies (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 581
• Valid legal analogies depend on relevant similarities rather than case quantities #qualifies (0.65) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 343
• Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 608
• The scope and meaning of legal rules depend on factual similarities #expands (0.55) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 151
• Analogical reasoning can operate as an intuitive particular-to-particular leap without a conscious rule #qualifies (0.50) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 183