About the logical relations between cases and rules

The two main types of law are legislation and precedents. Both types have a corresponding reasoning pattern determining legal consequences: legislation can be applied and precedents followed. The separate modelling of these two reasoning patterns using logical techniques has recently seen considerable progress. About the logical links between the two less is known, although progress has already been made. This document focuses on such logical relations. The main question is: to what extent can the application of legislation and precedent adherence be considered as two sides of the same logical coin? Findings from the boundaries of logic and law will serve as a starting point. This text is a translated, adapted and extended version of Verheij 2007.

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

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

[3]  Tharam S. Dillon,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, OTM 2010 , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[5]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Chapter 3 DECISION SUPPORT FOR PRACTICAL REASONING A Theoretical and Computational Perspective , 2008 .

[6]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law , 2005 .

[7]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Cases and Dialectical Arguments - An Approach to Case-Based Reasoning , 2004, OTM Workshops.

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[9]  David Hitchcock,et al.  Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation , 2010 .

[10]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Over de Logische Samenhang tussen Casus en Regels , 2007 .

[11]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[12]  María Bárbara Álvarez Torres,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2004: OTM 2004 Workshops , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

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

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

[16]  Robert S. Summers,et al.  Form and Function in a Legal System: A General Study , 2005 .

[17]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

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

[19]  J. Geoghegan.  Return to Reason! , 1942, Nature.

[20]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[21]  Bart Verheij.  Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme , 2005 .

[22]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Logic, Context and Valid Inference Or: Can there be a Logic of Law? , 2000 .

[23]  Wouter Slob.  Arguing on the Toulmin Model , 2006 .

[24]  Floris Bex,et al.  Accepting the Truth of a Story about the Facts of a Criminal Case , 2009 .

[25]  N. Maccormick,et al.  Interpreting precedents : a comparative study , 1998 .

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[27]  Jaap Hage,et al.  An Integrated View on Rules and Principles , 1998, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[28]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Arguing on the Toulmin Model , 2006, Arguing on the Toulmin Model.