The law is made up of particulars. Legal analysis is often based on analogy - a comparison of resemblances. Even the rules of stare decisis and precedent require that similar cases produce similar results. 

It has been said about legal research that " analogy does not depend on the number of instances, but upon the quality of resemblances between things."  (Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking, 3rd Ed. (NITA, 1997)) p. 93. 

In other words, is finding a lot of laws that are just similar to your case better than finding fewer, better cases or laws that really apply to your case?

What do you think? Is this true? If so, how does this affect the process of legal research and analysis? What do you think a judge would rather read? A memo supported by a lot of case law that sort of supports your case, or a memo citing fewer cases that are more on-point?