Find Precedents

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

View Similarity Network
Select Source Case
Source Case: Sharing As-Built Drawings

Case Number: 22-2

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
45% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
62%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
50%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
36%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
67%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 I.6 II.5.b +1

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information +1

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
58%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
56%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
12%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
14%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.5.b

Topics: Political Contributions, Gifts, Commissions

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

39% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
30%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
53%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
40%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 I.6 II.1.c +1

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information

Outcome: None vs Unclear

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

36% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
39%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
44%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
8%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

35% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
51%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
53%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
18%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 I.6

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: None vs Unclear

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

31% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
57%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
50%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
10%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.6

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

31% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
43%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
55%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
8%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
13%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

30% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
58%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
57%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
0%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

30% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
50%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
44%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
8%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
18%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

29% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
47%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
58%
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

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