Modeling authority commitments in two search and seizure cases

Authors:
Matthew Carey
Affiliations:
Thomson Reuters, Legal Editorial Operations
Venue:
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Year:
2011

Citing 7
Cited 0

Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment

Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation

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
Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules: interpreting legal rules as reasoning policies

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Three Senses of "Argument"

Computable Models of the Law
Argument Schemes for Legal Case-based Reasoning

Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Isomorphism and argumentation

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper proposes a method for modeling legal rules from common law jurisdictions in terms of the authority commitments they create for future cases. The purpose of this method is to capture information necessary for automated inferences about the strength of existing legal authority in favor of, or against, proposed statements of law. This data would have two potential uses. First, from the point of view of a given court and date, it would be possible to resolve the authority status of each legal rule, thus resolving conflicts between contradictory rules. Second, if the set of legal rules applicable to a particular court could be determined, it would be possible to apply those rules in a simulation of litigation in that court. The paper provides an example of authority-based reasoning by modeling rules from two cases about suppression of evidence derived from warrantless searches and seizures, and then demonstrating simple inferences about the status of those rules in federal and state courts in California.