Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game

This paper analyses legal reasoning with precedents in the setting of a formally defined dialogue game. After giving a legal-theoretical account of judicial reasoning with precedents, a formal method is proposed for representing precedents and it is discussed how such representations can be used in a formally defined dialectical protocol for dispute. The basic ideas are to represent cases as argument structures (including pro and con arguments, and the arguments for adjudicating their conflicts) and to define certain case-based reasoning moves as strategies for introducing information into a dispute. In particular, analogizing and distinguishing are conceived as elementary theory construction moves, which produce new information on the basis of an existing stock of cases. The approach also offers the possibility of using portions of precedents and of expressing criteria for determining the outcome of precedent-based disputes. The analysis, which is partly based on argument-based semantics of defeasible reasoning, has two aims. The first is to provide a formalization of certain aspects of legal theories on judicial reasoning and judge-made law, and the second is to provide formal foundations for certain aspects of computer programs for case-based reasoning in the legal domain.

[1]  Karl Branting,et al.  Rules and Precedents as Complementary Warrants , 1991, AAAI.

[2]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Modeling legal argument - reasoning with cases and hypotheticals , 1991, Artificial intelligence and legal reasoning.

[3]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Representation of formal dispute with astanding order , 2000, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[4]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  A case-based system for trade secrets law , 1987, ICAIL '87.

[5]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Linda Delany,et al.  Learning the law , 1996, Health Care Analysis.

[7]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference , 1987, Comput. Intell..

[8]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge , 1977 .

[9]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Reasoning with Rules , 1997 .

[10]  Ronald P. Loui,et al.  Eliding The Arguments of Cases , 1997 .

[11]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible Priorities , 1996, Artificial Intelligence Today.

[12]  Jaap Hage,et al.  A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[13]  J. Hage.  Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic , 1996 .

[14]  L. Karl Branting,et al.  Reasoning with portions of precedents , 1991 .

[15]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , 1997 .

[16]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[17]  H. B. Verheij.  Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .

[18]  T. Gordon.  The Pleadings Game , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[19]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Systems , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[20]  L. Thorne McCarty,et al.  An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[21]  Andrew S. Merrill,et al.  A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[22]  Alan R. White,et al.  Taking Rights Seriously. , 1977 .

[23]  Michele Taruffo,et al.  La motivazione della sentenza civile , 1975 .

[24]  Karl Branting,et al.  A computational model of ratio decidendi , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[25]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Pleadings game - an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice , 1995 .

[26]  L. Thorne McCarty,et al.  Some arguments about legal arguments , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[27]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[28]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[29]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible Reasoning , 2020, Synthese Library.

[30]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[31]  L. Thorne McCarty,et al.  The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations , 1981, IJCAI.

[32]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Rationales and argument moves , 1995, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[33]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Dialectical Proof Theory for Defeasible Argumentation with Defeasible Priorities (Preliminary Report) , 1997, ModelAge Workshop.

[34]  Roger A. Shiner,et al.  The Authority of Law , 1983 .

[35]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[36]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Process and Policy: Resource‐Bounded NonDemonstrative Reasoning , 1998, Comput. Intell..

[37]  Henry Prakken,et al.  From logic to dialectics in legal argument , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[38]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[39]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[40]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining , 1992, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[41]  Carole D. Hafner,et al.  Incorporating procedural context into a model of case-based legal reasoning , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[42]  R. Alexy.  A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification , 1989, The Cambridge Law Journal.

[43]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  How Different Is Different? Arguing About the Significance of Similarities and Differences , 1996, EWCBR.

[44]  Nikos I. Karacapilidis,et al.  The Zeno argumentation framework , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[45]  T. Gordon,et al.  How to Buy a Porsche: An Approach to Defeasible Decision Making , 1994 .

[46]  Ronald Dworkin,et al.  Taking Rights Seriously , 1977 .

[47]  Carole D. Hafner,et al.  Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[49]  Michael Clark,et al.  Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory , 1980 .

[50]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Hard cases: A procedural approach , 1993, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[51]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[52]  E Friedman,et al.  A matter of principle. , 1992, The Healthcare Forum journal.

[53]  L. Goldstein.  Precedent in Law , 1989 .