Is an appeal to precedent a type of inductive generalization?
This is the practice of using a case that has already been decided in a court of law (the precedent) as an analog with which to compare the case in question. If the case in question is sufficiently similar to the precedent, and the precedent stands on the authority of the court’s ruling, then it may be argued by analogy that the case in question should receive the same ruling. It would be inconsistent, hence illogical, to treat like cases (the analogs) differently.
