The design of an attorney's statistical consultant
ICAIL '89 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Zeno argumentation framework
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Unified Modeling Language user guide
The Unified Modeling Language user guide
Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence
ICAIL '03 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Reasoning on UML class diagrams
Artificial Intelligence
Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations
Artificial Intelligence and Law - Law, logic and defeasibility
Persuasion dialogue in online dispute resolution
Artificial Intelligence and Law - Online dispute resolution
Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
Arguments, Values and Baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper describes the author's development and use of a diagramming model in preparing a legal case for which he was responsible. He combined Wigmorean analysis and object oriented techniques in order to model arguments based on generalisations taken from the real world and from legal precedent. The paper addresses the modelling issues, but in particular identifies the very real benefits that affected the way the case was conducted. Those areas in which the model came into its own were principally the structuring of evidence, the preparation for the cross-examination of witnesses, and ensuring a consistent approach from picking up the case to making the closing submissions.