Poster Proceedings, 1-10. Extended abstract Reasoning by analogy is integral to legal reasoning in common law based legal systems. It is argued that any theory of legal analogizing that seeks to explain the way in which precedents are utilized must account for the influence of legal principles on the creation of legal analogies and for the use of analogies as a means to test and refine these principles. Consequently, any attempt to simulate legal analogizing must simulate the influence of legal principles on legal analogizing and the role of analogizing in determining the breadth of these principles.
Jurists provide many accounts of legal analogizing.
Such accounts emphasize that the determination of similarity or difference is the key step in legal analogizing. However, saying 'similar cases' should be decided alike is empty to the extent that it does not provide guidelines for determining which similarities and differences are important. Jurists argue that it is considerations of principle that ultimately establish what generalization a precedent or precedents establish. Legal principles influence which facts are required to establish an analogy. Stated alternatively, with a particular set of facts, what precedents are regarded as analogous is influenced by the principles to which the reasoner adheres.