John Horty
ABSTRACT
In response to problems raised by Bench-Capon [4], this paper shows how two models of precedential constraint can be broadened to include legal information represented through dimensions, as well as standard factors.
- Vincent Aleven and Kevin Ashley. 1997. Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-97). The Association for Computing Machinery Press, 170--179. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Larry Alexander. 1989. Constrained by precedent. Southern California Law Review 63 (1989), 1--64.Google Scholar
- Kevin Ashley. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 1999. Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99). The Association for Computing Machinery Press, 36--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 2002. The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (2002), 79--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 2012. Representing Popov v. Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (2012), 15--35. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Edwina Rissland. 2001. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In The Fourteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX-2001). IOS Press, 41--52.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Giovanni Sartor. 2003. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150 (2003), 97--143. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Neil Duxbury. 2005. The Nature and Authority of Precedent. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Melvin Eisenberg. 1988. The Nature of the Common Law. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Arthur Goodhart. 1930. Determining the ratio decidendi of a case. Yale Law Journal 40 (1930), 161--183.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Horty. 2004. The result model of precedent. Legal Theory 10 (2004), 19--31.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Horty. 2011. Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Legal Theory 17 (2011), 1--33.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Horty and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2012. A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (2012), 181--214. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grant Lamond. 2005. Do precedents create rules? Legal Theory 11 (2005), 1--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ronald Loui, Jeff Norman, Jon Olson, and Andrew Merrill. 1993. A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-93). The Association for Computing Machinery Press, 201--211. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henry Prakken. 2002. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (2002), 113--133. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. 1998. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1998), 231--287. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joseph Raz. 1979. The Authority of Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Edwina Rissland and Kevin Ashley. 2002. A note on dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (2002), 65--77. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edwina Rissland and David Skalak. 1989. Interpreting statutory predicates. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-89). The Association for Computing Machinery Press, 46--53. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. W. B. Simpson. 1961. The ratio decidendi of a case and the doctrine of binding precedent. In Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, A. G. Guest (Ed.). Oxford University Press, 148--175.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes
Recommendations
Precedential constraint: the role of issues
ICAIL '21: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawHorty, Rigoni and Prakken have developed formal characterisations of precedential constraint based on dimensions and factors as introduced in HYPO and CATO. We discuss the relation between dimensions and factors and also describe the current models of ...
Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent
This paper gives an account of dimensions in the reason model found in Horty (Legal Theory 17(1): 1---33, 2011), Horty and Bench-Capon (in: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 109---118, ACM Press, ...
Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes
AbstractThis paper shows how two models of precedential constraint can be broadened to include legal information represented through dimensions. I begin by describing a standard representation of legal cases based on boolean factors alone, and then ...
Comments