Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 181–214 | Cite as

A factor-based definition of precedential constraint

Article

Abstract

This paper describes one way in which a precise reason model of precedent could be developed, based on the general idea that courts are constrained to reach a decision that is consistent with the assessment of the balance of reasons made in relevant earlier decisions. The account provided here has the additional advantage of showing how this reason model can be reconciled with the traditional idea that precedential constraint involves rules, as long as these rules are taken to be defeasible. The account presented is firmly based on a body of work that has emerged in AI and Law. This work is discussed, and there is a particular discussion of approaches based on theory construction, and how that work relates to the model described in this paper.

Keywords

Case-based reasoning Precedent Theory construction Factor-based reasoning Rationales 

References

  1. Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, Intelligent Systems Program, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven V, Ashley KD (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, pp 170–179Google Scholar
  3. Alexander L (1989) Constrained by precedent. South Calif Law Rev 63:1–64Google Scholar
  4. Alexander L, Sherwin E (2001) The rule of rules: morality, rules, and the dilemmas of law. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashley KD (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2003) A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In: Bourcier D (ed) JURIX 2003: the sixteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems. IOS Press, pp 153–62Google Scholar
  7. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2001) Theory based explanation of case law domains. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp 12–21Google Scholar
  9. Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3):429–448MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bench-Capon TJM (1991) Practical legal expert systems: the relation between a formalisation of law and expert knowledge. In: Bennun M, Narayanan A (eds) Computers, law and AI. Ablex Publishers, Norwood, pp 191–201Google Scholar
  11. Bench-Capon TJM (1999) Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on AI and Law, pp 36–42Google Scholar
  12. Bench-Capon TJM, Modgil S (2009) Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on AI and Law, pp 118–127Google Scholar
  13. Bench-Capon TJM, Rissland EL (2001) Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In: Verheij B, Lodder A, Loui RP, Muntjewerff A (eds) JURIX 2001: the fourteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 41–52Google Scholar
  14. Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berman DH, Hafner CL (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of fourth international conference on AI and Law, pp 50–59Google Scholar
  16. Berman DH, Hafner CL (1995) Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. In: Proceedings of fifth international conference on AI and Law, pp 42–51Google Scholar
  17. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting outcomes of case-based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on AI and Law, pp 233–242Google Scholar
  18. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2005) Reasoning with textual cases. In: Muñoz-Avila H, Ricci F (eds) ICCBR, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3620. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–151Google Scholar
  19. Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) Agatha: using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artif Intell Law 13(1):9–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artif Intell Law 13(3–4):323–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cross R (1968) Precedent in English law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Hage J (1993) Monological reason-based logic: A low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on AI and Law, pp 30–39Google Scholar
  23. Hage J (1997) Reasoning with rules. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. Hage J (2005) Studies in legal logic. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Horty JF (2004) The result model of precedent. Leg Theory 10:19–31Google Scholar
  26. Horty JF (2007) Reasons as defaults. Philosopher’s Imprint 7(3):1–28Google Scholar
  27. Horty JF (2012) Reasons as defaults. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Horty JF (2011) Reasons and precedent. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 41–50Google Scholar
  29. Horty JF (2011) Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Leg Theory 17:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kornhauser L, Sager L (1986) Unpacking the court. Yale Law J 96:82–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lamond G (2005) Do precedents create rules. Leg Theory 11:1–26Google Scholar
  32. Levi E (1949) An introduction to legal reasoning. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindahl L, Odelstad J (2006) Intermediate concepts in normative systems. In: Goble L, Meyer J-J (eds) Deontic logic and artificial normative systems, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4048. Springer, Berlin, pp 187–200Google Scholar
  34. Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3):159–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loui RP, Norman J, Olson J, Merrill A (1993) A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on AI and Law, pp 202–211Google Scholar
  36. MacCormick DN, Summers R (1997) Interpreting precedents: a comparative study. Dartmouth Publishing, HanoverGoogle Scholar
  37. Modgil S (2009) Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif Intell 173(9–10):901–934MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Modgil S, Bench-Capon TJM (2010) Integrating dialectical and accrual modes of argumentation. In: Baroni P, Cerutti F, Giacomin M, Simari GR (eds) Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 216. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 335–346Google Scholar
  39. Prakken H (2005) A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  40. Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6:231–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raz J (1975) Practical reasoning and norms. Hutchinson and Company (second edition with new Postscript printed in 1990 by Princeton University Press, and reprinted by Oxford University Press in 2002; pagination refers to the Oxford edition)Google Scholar
  42. Raz J (1979) The authority of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rissland EL, Ashley KD (1987) A case-based system for trade secrets law. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on AI and Law, pp 60–66Google Scholar
  44. Rissland EL, Xu X (2011) Catching gray cygnets: an initial exploration. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on AI and Law, pp 151–60Google Scholar
  45. Ross A (1957) Tu-tu. Harvard Law Rev 70:812–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Cases and dialectical arguments—an approach to case-based reasoning. In: Meersman R, Tari Z, Corsaro A (eds) OTM workshops, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3292. Springer, Berlin, pp 634–651Google Scholar
  47. Schauer F (1989) Is the common law law. Calif Law Rev 77:455–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schauer F (1991) Playing by the rules: a philosophical examination of rule-based decision-making in law and life. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Schild U, Herzog S (1993) The use of meta-rules in rule based legal computer systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on AI and Law, pp 100–109Google Scholar
  50. Simpson AWB (1961) The ratio decidendi of a case and the doctrine of binding precedent. In: Guest AG (ed) Oxford assays in jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 148–175Google Scholar
  51. Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM (2009) Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 19(6):941–968MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson KM (2011) Towards formalising argumentation about legal cases. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 1–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department and Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations