Find Precedents

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

View Similarity Network
Select Source Case
Source Case: Professional Responsibility if Appropriate Authority Fails to Act

Case Number: 22-5

Year: 2022

View Full Case

Found 10 Precedents

Ranked by weighted similarity score
Matching Methods:
Cosine Semantic embedding similarity Jaccard Set intersection / union Categorical Exact match scoring
43% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
53%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
65%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
0%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Topics: Conflict of Interest Faithful Agents and Trustees Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unclear

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

40% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
60%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
73%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
11%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Duty to the Public

Citations: Case 20-4, Case 76-4 +1

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

34% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
41%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
81%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
0%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Citations: Case 76-4

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

34% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
37%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
58%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
25%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

34% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
26%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
49%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
0%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unclear

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

32% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
41%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
49%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
25%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Duty to the Public

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Unclear

32% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
53%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
62%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
0%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
12%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Topics: Duty to the Public

Citations: Case 20-4

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

32% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
36%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
50%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
25%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

30% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
45%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
61%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
0%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

29% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
38%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
46%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
10%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
22%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Duty to the Public

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

References View all

Richter, M.M. & Weber, R.O. (2013). Case-Based Reasoning: A Textbook. Springer. ISBN: 978-3-642-40166-4.

Reimers, N. & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. Proceedings of EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, pp. 3982-3992. DOI: 10.18653/v1/D19-1410

Sun, Z., Zhang, K., Yu, W., Wang, H. & Xu, J. (2024). Logic rules as explanations for legal case retrieval. Proceedings of LREC-COLING 2024, pp. 10747-10759. ACL Anthology

Wiratunga, N., et al. (2024). CBR-RAG: Case-based reasoning for retrieval augmented generation in LLMs for legal question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04302. arXiv

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue