MODULE 4 ANALOGICAL STRATEGIES

THE FUNDAMENTAL SKILL

1. NARROW ANALOGY
INDUCTIVE ANALYSIS AND ANALOGICAL REASONING
It compares the facts in your case directly to the facts of a
Inductive Analysis allows lawyer to induce a conclusion by establishing controlling case. Utilizing to identify the similarity.
legal analogy between the key facts in the controlling cases and the
Alternatively, lawyer uses narrow analogy to distinguish the
facts in the client’s cases. It is also called reasoning by analogy,
facts of the case-at-bar from precedents.
inductive analysis focuses on the material facts of the controlling case.
Four-Part Argument: Narrow Analogy
ANALOGICAL REASONING
 State the point of analysis
Analogy – a logical inference that if two or more things are similar in
 State the narrow fact comparison
some respects, they will be similar in other respects.
 Apply the court’s reasoning to your case
Legal Analogy – a logical inference that if two or more cases in the  Conclude
same jurisdiction are similar with respect to facts and legal issues,
2. BROAD ANALOGY
they will be similar with respect to their holdings.
A broader analogical strategy may be necessary to fully
Doctrine of Stare Decisis
analyze a legal issue. It draws general comparisons between cases
Once a court decides how a legal principle ought to be
that relate to but are not necessarily parallel to the critical facts.
applied to set of facts in particular case, that resolution or holding
ought to be repeated in a subsequent like cases.
Situations that Broad Analogies are appropriate:
The three triggers:
 When the case at bar raises unique or unusual facts
1. The Jurisdiction
 When the analysis requires the integration of a large body of
2. The Legal Issue
case law
3. The Facts
Four-Part Argument: Broad Analogy
ANALOGICAL MODEL
If the three triggers are met, the lawyer employs an analogy  State the point of analysis
to argue that a prior case is or is not controlling. To establish that a  State the broad comparison
case is controlling, the lawyer argues that the case was decided in the  Apply the court’s reasoning to your case
same jurisdiction, raised the same legal issue, and shares the same or  Conclude
similar facts as the case-at-bar.
DEDUCTIVE ANALYSIS AND RULE-BASED REASONING
Bear in mind that a precedent is a double-edged sword. Both
the plaintiff and defendant can use the same case, employ an analogy, Deductive analysis requires lawyer to apply the set of facts to a stated
and reach dramatically different conclusions. legal premise, like a statute or common law. The application of facts to
a rule allows lawyer to deduce a conclusion.
If precedent is favorable to a client’s legal position, the
lawyer aims to draw positive analogy between the facts in precedent Deductive reasoning is also called rule-based reasoning because the
and the facts in the case at bar, argument is structured around a rule – the major premise.

If the holding harms the client’s position, the lawyer DEDUCTIVE REASONING – THE SYLLOGISM
attempts a distinction between the facts in precedent and case-at-bar.
Syllogism - a deductive or rule-based argument containing two
Successful analogies, Fundamental Skills: premises and a conclusion. From the relationship of the two premises,
1. Accurately identifying the critical facts of the controlling authority you are able to infer or deduce the third proposition. If the two
and the case-at-bar. premises are “true” and the form of the argument is correct, then the
2. Correctly synthesizing the facts of the case conclusion has to be true.

CRITICAL FACTS The model:

Facts from controlling precedent that a court found  First premise

important when it resolved a legal dispute. A dispute is resolved when A broad statement that describes, quality, character,
the court determines that a particular result is required under the law property, or attribute that is true to all members of a class.
and facts of the case.  Second premise
Some characteristic of a member within the major premise
To identify critical facts, a lawyer examines the reasoning of  Conclusion
the controlling cases. The reasoning explains the legal basis of the A statement that follows logically from the application of
court’s decision. The reasoning of the case determines which facts are the minor premise to the major premise.
significant and important.
FLAWS IN SYLLOGISM
CASE SYNTHESIS
 One of the premises is incomplete or implied.
It blends several cases to identify a common factual
 The major premise does not fully explain, develop, or define
denominator among the controlling authority that can serve as a basis
the law. Without fully develop major premise, the argument
of an analogy.
fails
To perform case synthesis:
Four-Part Argument: Rule-based Reasoning
1. Lawyer carefully reads applicable opinions that are needed to
resolved legal issue  State the point of analysis or conclusion
2. Lawyer needs to understand the critical facts, holdings, reasons and  State the rule
any rules articulated in the authority  Explain the rule (if necessary)
3. Lawyer studies the critical facts to identify common denominator or  Apply the law to the facts
thread among the various opinions that incorporates the holdings and  Conclude
reasons of the various precedents
4. Lawyer builds a legal analogy around the common factual thread

Notes by: RMLabisto (1stsem 2019)