Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 341–365 | Cite as

Holdings about holdings: modeling contradictions in judicial precedent

  • Matthew CareyEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper attempts to formalize the differences between two methods of analysis used by judicial opinions in common law jurisdictions to contradict holdings posited by earlier opinions: “disagreeing” with the holdings of the earlier opinions and “attributing” holdings to the prior opinions. The paper will demonstrate that it is necessary to model both methods of analysis differently to generate an accurate picture of the state of legal authority in hypothetical examples, as well as in an example based on Barry Friedman’s analysis of the “stealth overruling” of Miranda v. Arizona through subsequent judicial interpretations. Because the question of whether “disagreement” and “attribution” need to be modeled separately relates to contradictions rather than to subtler interactions between holdings such as “distinguishing,” it can be answered using the simple technique of modeling holdings as propositional variables and evaluating the holdings using truth tables.

Keywords

Legal authority Holdings Precedent Stare decisis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Michael Poulshock and John Horty for their helpful comments and suggestions about this paper.

References

  1. Alexander L (2012) Precedential constraint, its scope and strength: a brief survey of the possibilities and their merits. In: Bustamante T, Bernal C (eds) On the philosophy of precedent. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  2. Ashley KD, Rissland EL (1987) But, see, accord: generating blue book citations in hypo. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 67–74Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon TJM, Coenen F (1992) Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif Intell Law 1:65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benesh SC, Reddick M (2002) Overruled: an event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. J Polit 64(2):534–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman DH, Hafner CD (1991) Incorporating procedural context into a model of case-based legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 12–20Google Scholar
  6. Berman DH, Hafner CD (1995) Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 42–51Google Scholar
  7. Bloom H (2003) A map of misreading: with a new preface. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Branting LK (1991) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 145–154Google Scholar
  9. Branting LK (1994) A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif Intell Law 2:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey M (2011) Modeling authority commitments in two search and seizure cases. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 181–188Google Scholar
  11. Dworkin R (1986) Law’s empire. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman B (2010) The wages of stealth overruling (with particular attention to Miranda v. Arizona). Georget Law J 99:1–63Google Scholar
  13. Hage JC, Leenes R, Lodder AR (1994) Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artif Intell Law 2:113–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hart HLA (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harv Law Rev 71:593–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horty JF (2011) Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Leg Theory 17:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horty JF, Bench-Capon TJM (2012) A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 20:181–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kannan PM (1993) The precedential force of panel law. Marquette L Rev 76:755–766Google Scholar
  18. Katz D (2006) Institutional rules, strategic behavior, and the legacy of Chief Justice William Rehnquist: setting the record straight on Dickerson v. United States. J Law Politics 22:303–340Google Scholar
  19. Leach WB (1967) Revisionism in the House of Lords: the bastion of rigid stare decisis falls. Harv L Rev 80:797–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leval PN (2006) Judging under the constitution: dicta about dicta. N Y Univ Law Rev 81:1249–1282Google Scholar
  21. McCarty LT (1995) An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 276–286Google Scholar
  22. McClurg SD, Comparato SA (2003) Rebellious or just misunderstood? Assessing measures of lower court compliance with Supreme Court precedent. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Raz J (2009) The authority of law: essays on law and morality: second edition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Stinson JM (2010) Why dicta becomes holding and why it matters. Brooklyn Law Rev 76:219–264Google Scholar
  25. Todd J (2007) Undead precedent: the curse of a holding limited to its facts. Tex Tech Law Rev 40:67–87Google Scholar
  26. Twining W, Miers D (2010) How to do things with rules: fifth edition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waldron J (1994) Vagueness in law and language: some philosophical issues. Calif Law Rev 82:509–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems, JURIX 2007. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 139–149Google Scholar
  29. Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM (2009) Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks. J Log Comput 19:941–968MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thomson Reuters CorporationAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations