Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link
ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Neural networks and open texture
ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals
Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals
Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples
Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples
A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values
Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments
ICAIL '03 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
AGATHA: using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories
Artificial Intelligence and Law - Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law
An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Pierson vs. Post RevisitedA Reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Argument Schemes for Legal Case-based Reasoning
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Probabilistic Semantics for the Carneades Argument Model Using Bayesian Networks
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
UMAP'11 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Advances in User Modeling
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
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper we offer an account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are expressed as defeasible rules of inference that will lend themselves to formalisation within the AS-PIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and then extend the account to accommodate the dimensions used in Rissland and Ashley's earlier HYPO project. Some additional scope for argumentation is then identified and formalised.