Judicial generalization and analogical reasoning constitute the process of induction

Evidence

A generalization “based on the cumulative experience of the judiciary,” is simply an elegant way of describing an enumeration of instances. And “seeking … to identify the relevant characteristics that are common [among cases]” is no more than analogy. You will also note that the process described in the paragraph above is a classic description of inductive reasoning. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676
• 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; 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; Inductive enumeration and legal analogy differ only in conclusion breadth — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 548 (+15 more)

Broader Connections

• Common law adjudication cycles induction and deduction into new rules #corroborates (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 168
• Legal reasoning employs both deductive and inductive processes iteratively. #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 312
• Inductive reasoning from varying factual scenarios forms premises for deductive reasoning #expands (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 762