Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities

Evidence

Analogy: This is reasoning from the particular to the particular, and this is technically distinguished from reasoning from the particular to the general. To draw an analogy between at least two entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar. It is to argue that the legal consequence attached to one set of particular facts may apply to a different set of particular facts because of similarities in the two sets of facts. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547
• XREF: connects to: 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; The scope and meaning of legal rules depend on factual similarities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 151 (+23 more)

Library Connections

• Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception #complicates (0.55) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 608

Broader Connections

• Analogical reasoning infers additional properties from shared case similarities #expands (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 570
• Valid legal analogies depend on relevant similarities rather than case quantities #expands (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 343
• Analogical reasoning fails when negative factual resemblances outweigh positive resemblances #qualifies (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 593
• Materiality of a new circumstance determines whether precedent extends to analogous facts. #expands (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1292
• A judicial precedent attaches specific legal consequences to detailed case facts. #exemplifies (0.65) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 131
• The scope and meaning of legal rules depend on factual similarities #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 151
• Inductive enumeration and legal analogy differ only in conclusion breadth #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 548
• Common law rules arise from comparing cases, not from tracing prior logic #expands (0.55) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 222
• Judicial generalization and analogical reasoning constitute the process of induction #expands (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676
• A legal principle emerges from a long line of decisions. #expands (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 134
• Advocates debate whether case factual similarities are legally material #qualifies (0.45) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 581