So much about legal reasoning depends on taking a close look at analogies. No set of facts is ever exactly like another. When citing precedents, however, each party hopes that the facts in certain...

So much about legal reasoning depends on taking a close look at analogies. No set of facts is ever exactly like another. When citing precedents, however, each party hopes that the facts in certain cases are similar enough in significant ways to cause the courts to select their cited cases as the more relevant ones in each case. The questions here focus on the quality of the precedent cited by the defendant in Case 22-3.

 1. What about and led to their being cited as authority by the defendant? Clue: Who won in and and why?

2. What caused Judge Murphy to reject the analogy of and as binding in Case 22-3? Clue: Check her discussion of and to find how she distinguished and from the case.