Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law

Authors:
Trevor Bench-Capon;Henry Prakken
Affiliations:
Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK;Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands and Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Venue:
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Year:
2010

Citing 10
Cited 10

Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument

ICAIL '89 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Hierarchical formalizations

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies - AI and legal reasoning. Part 2
A metalogic programming approach to multi-agent knowledge and belief

Artificial intelligence and mathematical theory of computation
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values

Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

Artificial Intelligence
A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals

Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference
Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
A case study of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases

Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009: The Twenty-Second Annual Conference
Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010

Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality

Artificial Intelligence and Law
Argumentation with Value JudgmentsAn Example of Hypothetical Reasoning

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2010: The Twenty-Third Annual Conference
Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Open texture and argumentation: what makes an argument persuasive?

Logic Programs, Norms and Action
Ontology framework for judgment modelling

AICOL'11 Proceedings of the 25th IVR Congress conference on AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems: models and ethical challenges for legal systems, legal language and legal ontologies, argumentation and software agents
Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values

Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Using event progression to enhance purposive argumentation in the value judgment formalism

Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
On balance

Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Modeling teleological interpretation

Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. As part of the reconstruction, a semiformal proposal is made for extending the formal AI & Law models with forms of metalevel reasoning in several argument schemes. The result is compared with Rissland's (1989) analysis in terms of dimensions and Ashley's (2008) analysis in terms of his process model of legal argument with hypotheticals.