Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 217–246 | Cite as

Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy



In this paper, it is shown (1) that there are two schemes for argument from analogy that seem to be competitors but are not, (2) how one of them is based on a distinctive type of similarity premise, (3) how to analyze the notion of similarity using story schemes illustrated by some cases, (4) how arguments from precedent are based on arguments from analogy, and in many instances arguments from classification, and (5) that when similarity is defined by means of episode schemes, we can get a clearer idea of how it integrates with the use of argument from classification and argument from precedent in case-based reasoning by using a dialogue structure.


Stories Case-based reasoning Argument from classification Argumentation 



I would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for a research grant that supported the work in this paper.


  1. Aleven V (1997) Teaching case based argumentation through an example and models. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley K (1988) Arguing by analogy in law: a case-based model. In: Helman DH (ed) Analogical reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 205–224Google Scholar
  3. Ashley K (2004) Capturing the dialectic between principles and cases. Jurimetrics 44:229–279Google Scholar
  4. Ashley K (2006) Case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Oskamp A (eds) Information technology and lawyers. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashley K (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological and hypothetical reasoning. In: Proceeding of ICAIL 2009: 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. New York: association for computing machinery, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  6. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In: Sartor G (ed) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  7. Bench-Capon TJM (2009) Dimension based representation of popov v hayashi. In: Atkinson K (ed) Modelling legal cases. Huygens editorial, Barcelona, pp 41–52Google Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon TJM (2010) Representing popov v. hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law (to appear)Google Scholar
  9. Bex F (2009a) Evidence for a good story: a hybrid theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. PhD thesis,University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  10. Bex F (2009b) Analysing stories using schemes. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, VerheijLegal B (eds) Evidence and proof: statistics stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 93–116Google Scholar
  11. Bex F, Prakken H (2008) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  12. Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artif Intell Law 11:125–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brewer S (1996) Exemplary reasoning: semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harv Law Rev 109:923–1038Google Scholar
  14. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006a) The carneades argumentation framework, computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207Google Scholar
  15. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006b) Pierson v. Post revisited, Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 208–219Google Scholar
  16. Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171:875–896MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray BE (2002) Reported and recommendations on the law of capture and first possession: popov v. hayashi. Superior of the State of California for the city and county of San Francisco, case no. 400545, November 6, 2002. Available May 24, 2009 at:
  19. Guarini M (2004) A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Log 24:153–168Google Scholar
  20. Guarini M, Butchart A, Simard Smith P, Moldovan A (2009) Resources for research on analogy: a multi-disciplinary guide. Informal Log 29(2):84–197Google Scholar
  21. Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart HLA (1949) The ascription of responsibility and rights. In: Proceedings of the aristotelian society, vol 49, pp 171–194. Reprinted in logic and language, Flew A (ed) Blackwell, Oxford, 1951, pp 145–166Google Scholar
  23. Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Leake DB (1992) Evaluating explanations: a content theory. Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  25. Loui RP (1995) Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism.In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 21–30. Available at:
  26. Macagno F, Walton D (2009) Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philos Rhetor 42:154–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCarthy KM (2002) Statement of decision. Superior court of California, December 12, 2002, Case of Popov v. Hayahsi #4005545: www.findlaw
  28. McCarty LT, Sridharan NS (1982) A computational theory of legal argument. LRP-TR-13. Laboratory for computer science research. New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  29. McLaren BM (2003) Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: an AI model. Artif Intell J 150:145–181MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McLaren BM (2006) Computational models of ethical reasoning: challenges, initial steps, and future directions.In: IEEE intelligent systems. Published by the IEEE Computer Society, July/August, pp 29–37Google Scholar
  31. Patry W (2005/06) The patry copyright blog. Accessed 22 Jul 2010.
  32. Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prakken H (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J Logic Comput 15:1009–1040MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Schank RC (1986) Explanation patterns: understanding mechanically and creatively. Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  35. Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  36. Schauer F (1987) Precedent. Stanford Law Rev 39(3):571–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schauer F (2009) Thinking like a lawyer. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomson J (1971) A defense of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1(1):47–66Google Scholar
  39. Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  40. Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IAAIL workshop series international workshop on argumentation in artificial intelligence and law. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 103–111Google Scholar
  41. Walton D, Gordon TF (2009) Jumping to a conclusion: fallacies and standards of proof. Informal Log 29:215–243Google Scholar
  42. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinreb LL (2005) Legal reason: the use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder A, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 139–149Google Scholar
  45. Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of popov v. hayashi. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp 151–160Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR)University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations