Plaintiff’s lawyer may argue that the historical event or entity “A”—in law, a putative precedent—bears many resemblances to the case at bar, “B.” The opponent will argue that although the facts in “A” and “B” are similar in some respects, this does not mean that those similarities are material and therefore relevant, or that the cases are similar in other respects; he or she will argue that a false analogy is present.

Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide …, loc. 581