Analogies are a standard method for creating a link between the case at hand and legal precedent. Wickard v. Filburn is a long-established precedent. The court’s reasoning in Case 5-2 is that the use...

Analogies are a standard method for creating a link between the case at hand and legal precedent. Wickard v. Filburn is a long-established precedent. The court’s reasoning in Case 5-2 is that the use of medical marijuana by the plaintiffs is sufficiently similar to the facts in Wickard to rely on this precedent.

1. What are the similarities between the case at hand and Wickard? Clue: Try to make a large list of similarities. Later after you have made a large list, think about the logic the analogy is trying to support. Eliminate those similarities that do not assist that logic because they are not relevant to an assessment of the quality of the analogy.

 2. Are there significant differences that the Court ignores or downplays? Clue: First think about the purpose this analogy is serving.Then think about the differences in the facts for this case and the facts for Wickard.