When describing good cases, which facts should you emphasize?

When describing good cases, which facts should you emphasize?

• A. The facts that are dissimilar to your case
• B. The facts that are similar to your case
• C. The procedural posture
• D. The jurisdiction

Answer: (B)

When arguing by analogy, you want the reader to see a clear line from the cited case to your own situation. Emphasizing facts that are similar to your case makes that line direct and persuasive. Courts apply rules to fact patterns, so showing core similarities between the cases helps the reader conclude that the cited holding should govern your case as well. Similar facts illustrate how the same legal reasoning should apply, making the argument feel intuitive and grounded in precedent rather than speculative. If you highlight dissimilar or distinguishing facts, you invite the reader to say, “this case is different,” which weakens the analogy and the persuasive force. That said, procedural posture or jurisdiction can matter for authority, but they don’t carry the same weight as showing an analogous fact pattern when you’re describing good cases to support your position.

When arguing by analogy, you want the reader to see a clear line from the cited case to your own situation. Emphasizing facts that are similar to your case makes that line direct and persuasive. Courts apply rules to fact patterns, so showing core similarities between the cases helps the reader conclude that the cited holding should govern your case as well. Similar facts illustrate how the same legal reasoning should apply, making the argument feel intuitive and grounded in precedent rather than speculative.

If you highlight dissimilar or distinguishing facts, you invite the reader to say, “this case is different,” which weakens the analogy and the persuasive force. That said, procedural posture or jurisdiction can matter for authority, but they don’t carry the same weight as showing an analogous fact pattern when you’re describing good cases to support your position.