Precedent constrains outcomes while analogy merely supports arguments

Evidence

A mandatory precedent will sometimes, by virtue of its authoritative status, block an otherwise preferred current decision. … Law’s use of precedent thus differs substantially from law’s use of analogy, for in the latter a previous decision is selected in order to support an argument now, while in the former a previous decision imposes itself to preclude an otherwise preferred outcome. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 162

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the core distinction between binding precedent and merely persuasive analogy.
• XREF: connects to: Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 66; Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 608; 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 (+7 more)

Related

• Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. (similarity 0.88)
• A case is precedent only when material facts match exactly (similarity 0.86)
• A binding precedent obliges courts to follow it or distinguish it. (similarity 0.85)
• Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities (similarity 0.85)
• Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception (similarity 0.84)
• Commissions performatively manufactured turning points, precedents, and blame (similarity 0.83)
• Precedent expresses a universal human need for predictability, not a common-law peculiarity (similarity 0.82)
• Following precedent is treated as a fallacy outside of law. (similarity 0.81)
• Advocates debate whether case factual similarities are legally material (similarity 0.81)
• Materiality of a new circumstance determines whether precedent extends to analogous facts. (similarity 0.81)
• Legal reasoning reduces to the judge drawing distinctions and the lawyer predicting them (similarity 0.79)
• The precedent system itself depends on what is technically dicta. (similarity 0.79)
• A judicial precedent attaches specific legal consequences to detailed case facts. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Stated precedent rules often fail to determine later case outcomes #corroborates (0.70) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 216
• 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
• Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities #contradicts (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547
• A case is precedent only when material facts match exactly #contradicts (0.40) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1299