Find Precedents

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

View Similarity Network
Select Source Case
Source Case: Acknowledging Errors in Design

Case Number: 23-4

Year: 2023

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
38% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
34%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
49%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
36%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
40%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

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

Topics: Errors Duty to the Public Faithful Agents and Trustees +3

Outcome: None vs Unclear

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

37% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
35%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
56%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
11%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Public Statements and Criticism

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

35% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
40%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
45%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
6%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
12%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

33% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
22%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
50%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
11%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
0%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1

Topics: Duty to the Public Faithful Agents and Trustees Employer +2

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Unclear

33% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
48%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
55%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
10%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
21%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.3.a

Topics: Public Statements and Criticism Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Professional Reports, Statements, Testimony

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

32% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
38%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
40%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
23%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

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

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Errors +1

Outcome: None vs Unclear

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

31% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
25%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
57%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
14%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
24%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.4

Topics: Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Public Statements and Criticism +1

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

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 Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

30% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
36%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
45%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
36%
Outcome Match Categorical
0%
Subject Tags Jaccard
47%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.4 II.3.a +1

Topics: Advertising Duty to the Public Faithful Agents and Trustees +4

Citations: Case 21-2

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

27% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
50%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
63%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
8%
Outcome Match Categorical
0%
Subject Tags Jaccard
21%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.2

Topics: Competence Qualifications for Work Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts

Citations: Case 02-5

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