Legal Definitions - comparison signal

A comparison signal is a specific phrase used in legal writing to direct the reader to examine and contrast two or more cited legal sources. Its primary purpose is to encourage the reader to compare these sources to better understand a point the author is making, often highlighting similarities, differences, or nuances between legal authorities.

This signal is typically used to support or clarify a preceding statement by demonstrating how different courts, statutes, or regulations approach a particular legal issue. It helps the author illustrate a divergence of opinion, an evolution in legal thought, or different applications of a rule.

The most common structure for a comparison signal is: Compare [Source 1] with [Source 2]. It can also involve multiple sources on each side, such as: Compare [Source 1] and [Source 2] with [Source 3] and [Source 4].

Examples:

• Imagine a legal brief discussing how different states interpret what constitutes a "public nuisance" in environmental law:

  "The definition of what constitutes a 'public nuisance' for purposes of environmental litigation varies significantly among state jurisdictions, impacting the scope of liability for polluters."

  "Compare State v. Green Corp., 123 P.3d 456 (Cal. 2010) (adopting a broad interpretation that includes aesthetic harm and psychological distress) with Environmental Advocates v. Industrial Co., 789 N.E.2d 123 (N.Y. 2008) (requiring direct physical harm or interference with public health)."

  This example illustrates a comparison signal by directing the reader to two different state court decisions. By comparing them, the reader can see how California and New York courts apply different standards to the same legal concept, thereby supporting the author's statement about varying interpretations of "public nuisance."

• Consider a memo analyzing the enforceability of non-compete clauses in employment contracts across different federal circuits:

  "Federal courts have applied differing standards when evaluating the reasonableness and enforceability of non-compete agreements, particularly regarding geographic scope and duration."

  "Compare Tech Solutions Inc. v. Innovate Corp., 45 F.3d 678 (1st Cir. 2014) (upholding a two-year, nationwide non-compete clause as reasonable given the specialized industry) with Global Services LLC v. Talent Pool, 90 F.3d 123 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding a similar clause overly broad and unenforceable without specific geographic limitations)."

  Here, the comparison signal prompts the reader to examine two federal appellate court decisions. The comparison reveals how different circuits can reach different conclusions on the enforceability of similar contractual provisions, demonstrating the author's point about varying judicial standards.