skip to main content
10.1145/3322640.3326695acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Reasoning with Legal Cases: Analogy or Rule Application?

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modelling reasoning with precedents has been a central concern of AI and Law since its inception. A recent paper has provided a discussion (in jurisprudential terms) of whether such reasoning is best seen as rule application or analogy. We review some of the prominent AI and Law approaches and find that over the years there has been a move away from analogy to rule application. Even in those approaches which do use analogy, however, the analogies handled concern only analogies between cases represented as sets of factors, and do not consider analogies between the elements of the fact situations peculiar to particular cases. In actual practice, however, analogies are used to determine which factors are relevant in a case, and which party is favoured by particular aspects of the case situation. Such analogies relate not to factors, but to real-world elements of the case and are hard to make and critique without a comprehensive common sense ontology. Thus while we may be able to construct specific ontologies to model past examples of such analogical reasoning, which can be useful for simulation and teaching, the ability to perform analogical reasoning on novel situations is, and is likely to remain, infeasible. This conclusion suggests that there will always be limits to our ability to construct systems able to handle new cases presenting novel situations.

References

  1. L. Al Abdulkarim. Representation of case law for argumentative reasoning. PhD thesis, U of Liverpool, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L. Al-Abdulkarim, K. Atkinson, and T. Bench-Capon. Evaluating the use of abstract dialectical frameworks to represent case law. In Proceedings of the 15th ICAIL, pages 156--160. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. Al-Abdulkarim, K. Atkinson, and T. Bench-Capon. A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using Abstract Dialectical Frameworks. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 24(1):1--49, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Aletras, D. Tsarapatsanis, D. Preoţiuc-Pietro, and V. Lampos. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 2:e93, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. V. Aleven. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, U of Pittsburgh, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L. Alexander. Constrained by precedent. Southern Cal Law Review, 63:1, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. K. D. Ashley. Modeling legal arguments: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT press, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. K. D. Ashley. Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 12th ICAIL, pages 1--10, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. D. Ashley, C. Lynch, N. Pinkwart, and V. Aleven. A process model of legal argument with hypotheticals. In Proceedings of JURIX 2008, pages 1--10, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. Atkinson. Introduction to special issue on modelling Popov v. Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(1):1--14, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Bench-Capon. Arguing with cases. In Jurix 1997, pages 85--100, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. T. Bench-Capon. Ontologies in AI and Law. Inteligencia Artificial Aplicada al Derecho, pages 65--85, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. T. Bench-Capon. Relating values in a series of Supreme Court decisions. In Proceedings of Jurix 2011, pages 13--22, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. T. Bench-Capon. HYPO's legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(2):205--250, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. T. Bench-Capon, M. Araszkiewicz, K. Ashley, K. Atkinson, F. Bex, F. Borges, D. Bourcier, P. Bourgine, J. G. Conrad, E. Francesconi, et al. A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(3):215--319, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. T. Bench-Capon and K. Atkinson. Dimensions and values for legal CBR. In Proceedings of JURIX 2017, pages 27--32, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2):97--143, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. D. H. Berman and C. D. Hafner. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 4th ICAIL, pages 50--59. ACM, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. P. Bratley, J. Frémont, E. Mackaay, and D. Poulin. Coping with change. In Proceedings of the 3rd ICAIL, pages 69--76. ACM, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Bruninghaus and K. D. Ashley. Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments. In Proceedings of the 9th ICAIL, pages 233--242. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. E. Charniak and D. McDermott. Introduction to AI. Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. D. L. Chen. Judicial analytics and the great transformation of American Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(1):15--42, 2019. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Chorley and T. Bench-Capon. An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(3-4):323--371, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. R. Cohen et al. The DARPA high-performance knowledge bases project. AI Magazine, 19(4):25, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. D'Amato. Can/should computers replace judges? Ga Law Rev, 11:1277, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. N. Duxbury. The nature and authority of precedent. CUP, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. D. Gelbart and J. Smith. Flexicon. In Proceedings of the 4th ICAIL, pages 142--151. ACM, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. M. Hazen and T. L. Hazen. Simulation of legal analysis and instruction on the computer. Indiana Law Journal, 59:195, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Horty. Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. In Proceedings of the 16th ICAIL, pages 109--118. ACM, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. Horty. Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 1--37, Available online March 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. J. Horty and T. Bench-Capon. A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(2):181--214, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. D. Jones, T. Bench-Capon, and P. Visser. Methodologies for ontology development. In XV IFIP world computer congress, pages 62--75, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. D. M. Katz, M. J. Bommarito II, and J. Blackman. A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PloS one, 12(4), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. G. Lamond. Do precedents create rules? Legal Theory, 11(1):1--26, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. D. B. Lenat. CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun. ACM, 38(11):33--38, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. G. A. Miller. Wordnet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39--41, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(1-3):113--133, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:231--287, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. E. Rich. Artificial Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. A. Rigoni. An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 23(2):133--160, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. A. Rigoni. Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 26(1):1--22, 2018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. E. L. Rissland. Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from Supreme Court oral argument. In Proceedings of the Second ICAIL, pages 111--120, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. E. L. Rissland. AI and Similarity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3):39--49, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. E. L. Rissland and K. D. Ashley. A case-based system for Trade Secrets law. In Proceedings of the 1st ICAIL, pages 60--66. ACM, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. A. C. Roth. Case-based reasoning in the law: a formal theory of reasoning by case comparison. Maastricht University, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. D. B. Skalak and E. L. Rissland. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial intelligence and Law, 1(1):3--44, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. K. Stevens. Reasoning by precedent--between rules and analogies. Legal Theory, pages 1--39, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. A. von der Lieth Gardner. An Artificial Intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Bradford Books, MIT Press, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. A. Wyner and T. Bench-Capon. Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of Jurix 2007, pages 139--149, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. A. Wyner and R. Hoekstra. A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(1):83--107, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Reasoning with Legal Cases: Analogy or Rule Application?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICAIL '19: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
      June 2019
      312 pages
      ISBN:9781450367547
      DOI:10.1145/3322640

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 June 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate69of169submissions,41%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader