An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning
An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning
Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals
Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals
A Case-Based Approach to Modeling Legal Expertise
IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications
Argument moves in a rule-guided domain
ICAIL '91 Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases
ICAIL '91 Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales
ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Legal knowledge acquisition using case-based reasoning and model inference
ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Similarity in harder cases: sentencing for fraud
ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Burden of proof in legal argumentation
ICAIL '95 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Precedent, deontic logic, and inheritance
ICAIL '99 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper presents a partial theory of arguing with precedents in law and illustrates how that theory supports multiple interpretations of a precedent. The theory provides succinct computational definitions of (1) the most persuasive precedents to cite in the principal argument roles and (2) the most salient aspects of the precedents to emphasize when citing them in those roles. An extended example, drawn from the output of the HYPO program, illustrates the range of different descriptions of the same precedent that are supported by the theory. Each description focuses on different salient aspects of the case depending on the argument context.