Similar Cases

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

Select Source Case
Source Case: Duty To Report Safety Violations

Case Number: 89-7

Year: 1989

Found 10 Similar Cases

Ranked by weighted similarity score
Matching Methods:
Cosine Semantic embedding similarity Jaccard Set intersection / union Categorical Exact match scoring
Cites Source 56% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
48%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
72%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
43%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1.a III.4

Topics: Confidential Information Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
78%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
58%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
38%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a

Topics: Confidential Information Duty to the Public

Citations: 82-2, 84-5

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
55%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
58%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
43%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
46%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
66%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
38%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a

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

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
43%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
65%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
57%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a +1

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information Duty to the Public +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
63%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
50%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
38%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Cited Precedent 49% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
67%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
74%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
11%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
29%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.4

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
55%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
66%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
30%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
76%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
41%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a

Topics: Duty to the Public

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
48%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
56%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
30%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 II.1.a

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

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate