How Case Contrast Works

(In the Intellegal app this feature is labelled Case Comparison; "Case Contrast" is its public name. Same tool.)

What Case Contrast is

A one-case summary tells you what a court held. It cannot tell you what changed. Doctrinal arguments — "this controlling case is distinguishable," "the rule has since been relaxed," "our facts fall under the newer standard" — are inherently comparative. They only become visible when two rulings sit in the same frame. Case Contrast builds that frame: it breaks each case into the same dimensions and aligns them row for row, so you read down a dimension rather than reading two decisions end to end.

Giving it cases

You start with two inputs, Case A and Case B. For each, type a case number or title to pull the decision from the Intellegal corpus, or upload your own document (.txt, .pdf, or .docx) for an unreported ruling or a draft not yet in the public record. An Add Case control lets you go beyond two when you need to.

Two modes: Basic and Advanced

This is the choice that shapes the output. Once both cases are selected, a Basic / Advanced toggle appears next to Start Comparison. The modes differ in how many dimensions they compare — and how deeply.

So Basic = four dimensions and Advanced = seven. Advanced adds Parties (who stood on each side), Applicable Provisions (the statutes and rules each court actually applied), and Procedural History (the case's path through the courts) — and tends to structure each cell in more detail. Reach for Basic when you want the shape of the divergence fast; reach for Advanced when you need the governing provisions and the procedural posture too.

How to run a contrast

1. Pick Case A and Case B. Type a case number or title to pull from the corpus, or upload a document. Add a third case if you need it.
2. Choose Basic or Advanced. Four dimensions for a quick read, seven for the fuller analysis.
3. Start the comparison. Intellegal parses each decision and extracts the chosen dimensions, then renders the aligned table.
4. Read down the columns, not across the cases. Compare Focus to Focus, Reasoning to Reasoning. The divergence you are looking for almost always sits in the Judgment & Reasoning row.
5. Verify before you cite. Follow each case back to its source decision and confirm the holding before it goes into a memo or pleading.

What Basic returns

Basic produces the aligned table across the four core dimensions. In the live run, reading down each row makes the two cases legible at a glance: the Focus of Dispute row states the controlling issue each court decided; Legal Facts lays out the operative facts; Judgment & Reasoning carries the disposition and the ratio, broken out by court level (RTC → CA → SC); and Evidence lists what each court relied on.

What Advanced adds

Advanced keeps those four dimensions and adds three. Parties names who stood on each side (petitioners and respondents). Applicable Provisions surfaces the specific statutes and rules each court applied. Procedural History traces each case's route through the courts. Advanced also breaks each cell into structured sub-points (key events, summaries) rather than a single paragraph.

The two rows that most distinguish Advanced from Basic sit lower in the table. In the example run, Applicable Provisions makes each side's legal basis explicit — Articles 19, 21, 2208, 2219, and 2229 of the Civil Code and Section 31 of the Corporation Code for Case A; Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and Article 412 of the Civil Code for Case B — and Procedural History lays out each case's path through the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.

A similarities-and-differences breakdown

Below the dimension table, Advanced appends a Similar Difference Analysis: per-dimension tabs — Legal Facts, Focus of Dispute, Judgment — that separate what the two cases have in common from where they part, each as numbered points, followed by a short synthesis. It turns the side-by-side table into an explicit "here is how they align, here is how they diverge" read — the comparison done for you, not just laid out.

The worked example

The run above contrasts two unrelated Supreme Court cases — the point being to show the frame, not a doctrinal line. Case A, Cebu Country Club, Inc. v. Elizagaque (G.R. No. 160273), turned on a club's bad-faith disapproval of a membership application and liability for damages under the Civil Code's human-relations provisions. Case B, Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo (G.R. No. 189476), turned on whether a change of name that affects civil status must proceed under Rule 103 or the stricter Rule 108. Side by side, the dimensions do the work: the Focus of Dispute row confirms the two cases are about genuinely different questions; Applicable Provisions (in Advanced) makes the legal bases explicit; and Judgment & Reasoning shows each court's path to its result. For an actual doctrinal line, you would pick two related rulings — and the same columns would then expose exactly how the second refined the first.

Read down the columns, not across

The habit that makes the feature pay off: pick a dimension and read it down both cases before moving to the next. Comparing Reasoning to Reasoning is how a doctrinal shift becomes visible; comparing Evidence to Evidence tells you the evidentiary bar each court actually required. A junior associate who lays two cases side by side this way can tell a senior, in one screen, exactly where the cases align and where they part.

Being honest about the limits

Case Contrast is a research aid, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. It aligns and summarizes; it does not decide. Each case traces back to its source decision, and the verification duty stays with you — the feature's value is that it makes that verification quick to perform, not that it removes it. Confirm every holding against the original before you rely on it.

Why this matters, by reader

Junior associates. "Compare these cases and tell me how the doctrine moved" is a constant assignment. Basic gives the shape in one screen; Advanced adds the provisions and procedural posture a senior will ask about next.

Bar candidates. Reading a doctrinal line as a sequence of contrasts — each case against the one before it — is how the line sticks. The aligned dimensions model the comparison the exam rewards.

Any practitioner distinguishing a precedent. The Legal Facts and Evidence rows are where "our matter is closer to this case than that one" lives — the raw material of a distinguishing argument.

Related reading

• Case Contrast — the shorter overview of what the feature does.
• Deep Synthesis — when the question spans more than two cases and you need a structured, multi-source research report.
• Contract Review — the same verify-before-you-rely discipline, applied to clauses instead of cases.

FAQ