Find Precedents

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

Select Source Case
Source Case: Unlicensed Practice by Nonengineers with “Engineer” in Job Titles

Case Number: 22-1

Year: 2022

Found 10 Precedents

Ranked by weighted similarity score
Matching Methods:
Cosine Semantic embedding similarity Jaccard Set intersection / union Categorical Exact match scoring
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
0%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
0%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
27%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
12%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.1.i II.1.f

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unclear

Pattern: Stalemate vs Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
0%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
0%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
44%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1.e II.1.f +1

Topics: Licensure Laws Unethical Practice by Others Duty to the Public

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Stalemate vs Transfer

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

Provisions: I.1 I.1.i II.5.a

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Duty to the Public

Citations: Case 95-10

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
0%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
0%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1.f III.8.a

Topics: Licensure Laws Duty to the Public

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
0%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
0%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
8%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
9%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unclear

Pattern: Both Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
0%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
0%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
8%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
10%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unclear

Pattern: Both Stalemate

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

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unclear

Pattern: Stalemate vs Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
0%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
0%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
20%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.5.a III.8.a

Topics: Licensure Laws Unethical Practice by Others Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Stalemate

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

Outcome: Both Unclear

Pattern: Both Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
0%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
0%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
17%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
29%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.1.i

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Duty to the Public

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both 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