Similar Cases

Multi-factor similarity search using provision overlap, semantic similarity, and outcome alignment.

View Similarity Network
Select Source Case
Source Case: Employment—Questioning Ability Of Former Employer

Case Number: 01-1

Year: 2001

View Full Case

Found 10 Similar Cases

Ranked by weighted similarity score
Matching Methods:
Cosine Semantic embedding similarity Jaccard Set intersection / union Categorical Exact match scoring
46% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
46%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
58%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
30%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 III.3.a

Topics: Self-Promotion

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

Cited Precedent 46% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
54%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
81%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
25%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
40%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.1.d III.6 III.7

Citations: 77-11, 79-10 +1

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

Cited Precedent 46% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
73%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
59%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
9%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
30%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.7

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

46% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
63%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
72%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
23%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 III.3.a

Topics: Public Statements and Criticism Self-Promotion

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

44% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
52%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
73%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
27%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 III.3.a +1

Topics: Public Statements and Criticism Self-Promotion

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

43% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
41%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
46%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
31%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
30%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 I.6 +1

Topics: Self-Promotion

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

43% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
54%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
72%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
0%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
17%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Topics: Unfair Competition Public Statements and Criticism Unethical Practice by Others +1

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
57%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
61%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
6%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.6

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

Cites Source 42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
68%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
72%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
18%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.6 III.7

Topics: Unfair Competition Public Statements and Criticism Unethical Practice by Others

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
55%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
63%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
6%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
17%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.6

Topics: Unfair Competition

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue