Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into a history of the last quarter century of the field, and provide some insights into where it has come from, where it is now, and where it might go.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Joint research project of the Stanford Research Institute, California and the KVAL Institute for Information Science, Stockholm.

  2. The other early reference is to Karpf (1989), which does not seem to be available online.

  3. To my embarrassment I must say that until now I never cited Ashley’s 1989 paper, since I always cite his book on HYPO (Ashley 1990). Most other authors do the same, which explains why his 1989 paper is not much cited. However, I have always used not the book but my hard copy of the ICAIL 1989 paper to check Ashley’s definitions, witness the many handwritten notes it contains.

  4. Post was chasing a fox with horse and hounds. As he closed in for the kill, Pierson killed the fox with a fence pole and bore it off. Pierson won since Post did not have clear bodily possession of the fox, even though this might discourage fox hunting.

  5. Stare decisis must bow to changing values, as Justice Marshall put it in Furman v. Georgia.

  6. An expanded version of the ICAIL 1993 paper was also published in Artficial Intelligence and Law (Branting 1993b)

  7. This paper was a summary of Gordon’s PhD thesis of the same year, which later appeared in revised form as Gordon (1995).

  8. Bench-Capon discusses a third question, namely whether we can derive rules from the networks. Because of the way in which he addresses this question, it is not further discussed here.

  9. A question remains however: the network has 45 and 50 as significant ages, instead of 60 and 65. Bench-Capon gives no explanation for this oddity: is it a systematic consequence of the learning rule used, perhaps a small bug in the set up?

  10. In fact this journal paper was still in press and so (Prakken 1995) refers to Dung’s 1993 IJCAI paper.

  11. Personal communication via email with Kathleen Freeman.

  12. It also impacted strongly on how conferences were organised. At this time submission was by multiple hard copies which had to be distributed to reviewers by “snail mail”. Electronic submission was still for the future: originally, controversially, as an option.

  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#The_first_browser_war.

  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0.

  15. These and other graphical formats for the presentation of arguments are discussed in Verheij (2005).

  16. http://rationale.austhink.com/.

  17. See the UK site: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/, or the US site: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions. Accessed April 3rd 2012

  18. See: http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/. Accessed April 3rd 2012

  19. See: http://www.policy-impact.eu/. Accessed April 3rd 2012.

  20. This paper also introduced one of the classic AI and Law cases, Mason v. Jack Daniels Distillery, 518 So.2d 130, 1987 Ala. Civ. App., to AI and Law. A bartender, Tony Mason, invented a cocktail, Lynchburgh Lemonade comprising Jack Daniel’s whiskey, Triple Sec, sweet and sour mix, and 7-Up. It proved surprisingly popular. Mason met Winston Randle, a sales representative for Jack Daniel Distillery, and they talked about the drink, and its possible use in a promotion. Approximately one year later the defendants were developing a national promotion campaign for Lynchburg Lemonade. Mason claimed that he had parted with the recipe because he had been told that his band would be used in the promotion. In fact Mason received nothing. The jury found for the plaintiff, but awarded only a dollar in damages. Following Aleven and Ashley (1997) Mason joined Eisner v. Macomber (see Sect. 6.6) and the wild animals cases following Pierson v. Post (see Sect. 5.1) in the AI and Law canon.

  21. Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where Scott lost 2–7.

  22. Now part of the Thomson Reuters Corporation.

  23. Atkinson is Katie’s married name. She was on honeymoon in the Maldives during ICAIL 2003.

  24. http://alias-i.com/lingpipe/.

  25. This sub section was originally published by the author and is reprinted here by his kind permission. Thanks are due to the author for granting this permission.

References

  • Ågotnes T, van der Hoek W, Tennenholtz M, Wooldridge M (2009) Power in normative systems. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, pp 145–152

  • Adelman L, Gualtieri J, Riedl SL (1994) A multifaceted approach to evaluating expert systems. Artif Intell Des Anal Manufact 8(4):289–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through an example and models. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

  • Aleven V, Ashley KD (1997) Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 170–179

  • Alexy R (1978) Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als eine Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R (1985) Theorie der Grundrechte. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Kofahi K, Grom B, Jackson P (1999) Anaphora resolution in the extraction of treatment history language from court opinions by partial parsing. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 138–146

  • Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A, Jackson P (2001) A machine learning approach to prior case retrieval. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 88–93

  • Allen LE, Saxon CS (1995) Better language, better thought, better communication: the A-Hohfeld language for legal analysis. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 219–228

  • Allen LE, Saxon CS (1997) Achieving fluency in modernized and formalized hohfeld: puzzles and games for the LEGAL RELATIONS Language. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 19–28

  • Amaya A (2000) Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology. Artif Intell Law 15(4):429–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson TJ, Schum DA, Twining WL (2005) Analysis of evidence, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou G (2004) Defeasible logic with dynamic priorities. Int J Intell Syst 19(5):463–472

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Araszkiewicz M (2010) Balancing of legal principles and constraint satisfaction. In: Winkels R (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2010. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley KD (1989) Toward a computational theory of arguing with precedents. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 93–102

  • Ashley KD (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley KD (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10

  • Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2003) A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In: Bourcier D (ed) Proceedings of Jurix 2003. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13(1):93–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007a) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171(10–15):855–874

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007b) Argumentation and standards of proof. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 107–116

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of persuasive argument. Synthese 152:157–206

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, Cartwright D, Wyner AZ (2011) Semantic models for policy deliberation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–90

  • Baron JR, Thompson P (2007) The search problem posed by large heterogeneous data sets in litigation: possible future approaches to research. In: proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 141–147

  • Belew RK (1987) A connectionist approach to conceptual information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 116–126

  • Bench-Capon TJM (1989) Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 37–45

  • Bench-Capon TJM (1993) Neural networks and open texture. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 292–297

  • Bench-Capon TJM (1998) Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Hage J et al (eds) Legal knowledge-based systems. Jurix 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut, Nijmegen, pp 5–19

  • Bench-Capon TJM (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3):429–448

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM (2012) Relating values in a series of supreme court decisions. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge-based systems. Jurix 2011. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Coenen FP (1992) Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif Intell Law 1(1):65–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2000) Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In: Breuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2001) A quantitative approach to theory coherence. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2001. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 53–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Gordon F (2009) Isomorphism and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–20

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H (2006) Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 247–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Rissland EL (2001) Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2001. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Staniford G (1995) PLAID—proactive legal assistance. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–88

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Visser PRS (1997) Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualizations. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 132–141

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Robinson GO, Routen TW, Sergot MJ (1987) Logic programming for large scale applications in law: a formalisation of supplementary benefit legislation. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 190–198

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Dunne PE, Leng PH (1992) A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems. In: Rault JC (ed) Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference on expert systems and their applications, vol 1. Nanterre, pp 105–113

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H, Visser W (2011) Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 21–30

  • Berman DH, Hafner CD (1988) Obstacles to the development of logic-based models of legal reasoning. In: Walter C (ed) Computer power and legal language: the use of computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and expert systems in the law. Quorum Books, Westport CT, pp 183–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Amsterdam. ACM Press, New York, pp 50–59

  • Bex FJ (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bex FJ, Prakken H (2004) Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: an application to evidential reasoning. In: Gordon TF (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 119–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Bex FJ, Prakken H (2010) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Bex FJ, Verheij B (2011) Legal shifts in the process of proof. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–20

  • Bex FJ, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11(2–3):125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bex FJ, Prakken H, Verheij B (2007) Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10

  • Bex FJ, van den Braak SW, van Oostendorp H, Prakken H, Verheij B, Vreeswijk GAW (2007) Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):145–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bex FJ, van Koppen PJ, Prakken H, Verheij B (2010) A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artif Intell Law 18(2):123–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bex FJ, Bench-Capon TJM, Verheij B (2011) What makes a story plausible? The need for precedents. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2011: the twenty fourth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 23–32

  • Bing J (ed) (1984) Handbook of legal information retrieval. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing J (1987) Designing text retrieval systems for conceptual searching. In: ICAIL ’87: proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 43–51

  • Bing J (1987) Performance of legal text retrieval systems: the curse of Boole. Law Library J 79:187–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing J, Harwold T (1977) Legal decisions and information systems. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair DC, Maron ME (1985) An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW, Brown JR, Kaspar H, Lipow M, McLeod G, Merritt M (1978) Characteristics of software quality. TRW Software Series, New Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer A, van Engers TM (2011) An agent-based legal knowledge acquisition methodology for agile public administration. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 171–180

  • Boer A, van Engers TM, Winkels R (2003) Using ontologies for comparing and harmonizing legislation. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Pres, New York, pp 161–172

  • Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting outcomes of case-based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, NewYork, pp 233–242

  • Branting LK (1991a) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 145–154

  • Branting LK (1991b) Building explanations from rules and structured cases. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):797–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branting LK (1993a) A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 40–49

  • Branting LK (1993b) A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif Intell Law 2(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branting LK (2003) A reduction-graph model of precedent in legal analysis. Artif Intell 150(1–2):59–95

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Breuker J, den Haan N (1991) Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 92–97

  • Breuker J, Hoekstra R (2004) Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRICore, two core ontologies for law. In: Proceedings of EKAW workshop on core ontologies. CEUR

  • Bylander T, Chandrasekaran B (1987) Generic tasks for knowledge-based reasoning: the “right” level of abstraction for knowledge acquisition. Int J Man Mach Stud 26(2):231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright D, Atkinson K (2009) Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intell Syst 24(5):42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casner AJ, Barton LW (1964) Cases and text on property. Little Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran B (1986) Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: high-level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Exp 1(3):23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm R (1963) Contrary-to-duty imperative and deontic logic. Analysis 24(2):33–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) AGATHA: using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artif Intell Law 13(1):9–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clancey W (1981) The epistemology of a rule-based expert system: a framework for explanation. Technical Report STAN-CS-81-896, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science

  • Cross R (1979) Precedent in English Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad JG, Dabney DP (2001) A cognitive approach to judicial opinion structure: applying domain expertise to component analysis. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11

  • Conrad JG, Schilder F (2007) Opinion mining in legal blogs. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–236

  • Conrad JG, Leidner JL, Schilder F, Kondadadi R (2009) Query-based opinion summarization for legal blog entries. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 167–176

  • Dayal S, Johnson P (2000) A web-based revolution in Australian public administration. In: Proceedings of law via the internet (reprinted in J Inform Law Technol 1)

  • de Waard A, Kircz J (2008) Modeling scientific research articles—shifting perspectives and persistent issues. In: Proceedings of ELPUB 2008 international conference on electronic publishing. Toronto, Canada. ELPUB Digital Library, pp 234–245

  • Duda R, Gasching J, Hart P (1979) Model design in the PROSPECTOR consultant system for mineral exploration. In: Michie D (ed) Expert systems in the micro-electronic age. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 153–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Farley AM, Freeman K (1995) Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 156–164

  • Farzindar A, Guy L (2004) LetSum, an automatic legal text summarizing system. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems, Jurix 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 11–18

  • Finkelstein MO, Levin B (2003) On the probative value of evidence from a screening search. Jurimetrics 43:265–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Francesconi E, Peruginelli G (2008) Integrated access to legal literature through automated semantic classification. Artif Intell Law 17(1):31–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure. Foris Publications, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman K (1993) Towards formalizing dialectical argumentation. Phd thesis, University of Oregon

  • Freeman K, Farley AM (1996) A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):163–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galgani F, Hoffman A (2010) LEXA: towards automatic legal citation classification. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 445–454

  • Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhart A (1930) Determining the ratio decidendi of a case. Yale Law J 40(2):161–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF (1987) Oblog-2: a hybrid knowledge representation system for defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–239

  • Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game; an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Ph.d., Technical University of Darmstadt

  • Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 10–19

  • Gordon TF (1995) The pleadings game. an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 10–18

  • Gordon TF, Walton DN (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (ed) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton DN (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Governatori G (1996) Labelling ideality and subideality. In: Gabbay DM, Ohlbach HJ (eds) Practical reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–304

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Cooper Inform Syst 14(2–3):181–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Governatori G, Olivieri F, Scannapieco S, Cristani M (2010) Superiority based revision of defeasible theories. In: Dean M, Hall J, Rotolo A, Tabet S (eds) RuleML. Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, pp 104–118

  • Grabmair M, Ashley KD (2011) Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 50–59

  • Greenwood K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2003) Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 22–31

  • Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Human Comput Stud 43(5–6):907–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hachey B, Grover C (2005) Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 75–84

  • Hafner CD (1987) Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 35–42

  • Hafner CD, Berman DH (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):19–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage J (1993) Monological reason-based logic: a low-level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 30–39

  • Hage J (1995) Teleological reasoning in reason-based logic. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–32

  • Hage J (1997) Reasoning with rules. An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage J (2000) Goal-based theory evaluation. In: Breuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage J (2001) Formalizing legal coherence. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 22–31

  • Hage J (2005) Studies in legal Logic. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage J, Peczenik A (2000) Law, morals, and defeasibility. Ratio Juris 13(3):305–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage J, Peczenik A (2001) Legal internalism. In: Chiassoni P (ed) The legal ought. Proceedings of the IVR mid-term congress. Genoa, pp 141–170

  • Hage J, Verheij B (1994) Reason-based logic: a logic for reasoning with rules and reasons. Inform Commun Technol Law 3(2–3):171–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage J, Span G, Lodder AR (1992) A dialogical model of legal reasoning. In: Grutters C et al (eds) Legal knowledge-based systems: Jurix 92. Koninklijjke Vermade, Lelystad, pp 135–145

  • Hage J, Leenes RE, Lodder AR (1993) Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artif Intell Law 2(2):113–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall J, Zeleznikow J (2001) Acknowledging insufficiency in the evaluation of legal knowledge-based systems: strategies towards a broad based evaluation model. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 147–50

  • Hammond P (1983) Representation of DHSS regulations as a logic program. Department of Computing: Research report DoC, Imperial College

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepler AR, Dawid AP, Leucari V (2007) Object-oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidence. Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):275–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrestad H (1991) Norms and formalization. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 175–184

  • Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cogn Sci 13(3):295–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horty JF (2011) Reasons and precedent. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 41–50

  • Hume D (1739) A treatise on human nature. Available as: A Treatise of human nature, edited by Selby-Bigge LA, 2nd edn. (revised by Nidditch PH, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975)

  • Hunter D (1999) Out of their minds: legal theory in neural networks. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K (2011) Human expertise and artificial intelligence in legal search. In: Geist A, Brunschwig CR, Lachmeyer F, Schefbeck G (eds) Strukturierung der Juristischen Semantik—Structuring Legal Semantics. Editions Weblaw, Bern, pp 417–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A (2003) Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif Intell 150(1–2):239–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobovits H, Vermeir D (1999) Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 53–62

  • Johnson P, Mead D (1991) Legislative knowledge base systems for public administration: some practical issues. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 108–117

  • Jones AJI, Pörn I (1985) Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic. Synthese 65(2):275–290

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jones AJI, Pörn I (1986) “Ought” and “Must”. Synthese 66(1):89–93

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Juzgado NJ, Moran JL (1998) Common framework for the evaluation process of KBS and conventional software. Knowl Based Syst 1(2):145–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane JB, Schum DA (1996) A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Karacapilidis NI, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inform Syst 26(4):259–277

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Karousos N, Papaloukas S, Kostaras N, Xenos MN, Tzagarakis M, Karacapilidis NI (2010) Usability evaluation of web-based collaboration support systems: the case of CoPe_it! In: Proceedings of the third world summit on the knowledge society, volume 111 of communications in computer and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 248–258

  • Karpf J (1989) Quality assurance of legal expert systems. In: Pre-proceedings of the third international conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto, CNR, Florence, pp 411–440

  • Keppens J (2011) On extracting arguments from Bayesian network representations of evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 141–150

  • Keppens J, Schafer B (2006) Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Exp Syst Appl 30(2):203–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keppens J, Shen Q, Price C (2011) Compositional Bayesian modelling for computation of evidence collection strategies. Appl Intell 35(1):134–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner PA, Buckingham S, Simon J, Carr CS (eds) (2003) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan S, Levin D, Routledge BR, Sagi JS, Smith NA (2009) Predicting risk from financial reports with regression. In: Proceedings of the human language technologies: the annual conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 272–280

  • Kowalski RA, Toni F (1996) Abstract argumentation. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):275–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauritsen M (2005) Intelligent tools for managing factual arguments. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104

  • Leenes RE (2001) Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 109–118

  • Leidner JL, Schilder F (2010) Hunting for the black swan: risk mining from text. In: Proceedings of the association for computational linguistics (ACL), association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 54–59

  • Leith P (1982) ELI: an expert legislative consultant. In: Proceedings of the IEE conference on man/machine systems UMIST Conference Publication 212

  • Levi EH (1949) An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl L, Odelstad J (2008) Intermediaries and intervenients in normative systems. J Appl Logic 6(2):229–250

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd JW (1987) Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder AR (1999) DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and philosophy library. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder AR, Herczog A (1995) DiaLaw a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 146–155

  • Lorenzen P, Lorenz K (1978) Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Loui RP (1998) Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Comput Intell 14(1):1–38

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3):159–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui RP, Norman J, Olson J, Merrill A (1993) A design for reasoning with policies, precedents and rationales. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 202–211

  • Loui RP, Norman J, Altepeter J, Pinkard D, Craven D, Linsday J, Foltz MA (1997) Progress on room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 207–214

  • Luehrs R, Malsch T, Voss K (2001) Internet, discourses and democracy. In: New frontiers in artificial intelligence, LNCS 2253. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–74

  • Macintosh A, Gordon TF, Renton A (2009) Providing argument support for e-participation. J Inform Technol Politics 6(1):43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackaay E, Robillard P (1974) Predicting judicial decisions: the nearest neighbour rule and visual representation of case patterns. Datenverarbeitung im Recht 3(3–4):302–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie JD (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Philos Logic 8(1):117–133

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schtze H (eds) (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty LT (1983) Permissions and obligations. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. William Kaufmann, MA, pp 287–294

  • McCarty LT (1984) Intelligent legal information systems: problems and prospects. In: Campbell C (ed) Data processing and the law. Sweet and Maxwell, London, pp 125–151

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty LT (1989) A language for legal discourse I: basic features. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 180–189

  • McCarty LT (1991) Invited address: on the role of prototypes in appellate legal argument. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 185–190

  • McCarty LT (1995) An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 276–286

  • McCarty LT, Sridharan NS (1981) The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufmann, MA, pp. 246–253

  • Mochales R, Moens M-F (2009) Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp. 98–107

  • Mochales R, Moens M-F (2011) Argumentation mining. Artif Intell Law 19(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modgil S, Bench-Capon TJM (2011) Metalevel argumentation. J Logic Comput 21(6):959–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Modgil S, Prakken H (2011) Revisiting preferences and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence. IJCAI/AAAI, pp 1021–1026

  • Moens M-F, Uyttendaele C, Dumortier J (1997) Abstracting of legal cases: the SALOMON experience. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 114–122

  • Moulin B, Irandoust H, Bélanger M, Desbordes G (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif Intell Rev 17(3):169–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson NJ (1982) Principles of artificial intelligence. Springer, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe RM, O’Leary DE (1993) Expert system verification and validation: a survey and tutorial. Artif Intell Rev 7(1):3–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmirani M, Governatori G, Contissa G (2011) Modelling temporal legal rules. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–135

  • Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inform Retr 2(1–2):1–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulk MC, Weber CV, Curtis B, Chrissis MB (1995) Capability maturity model for software. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik A (2008) On law and reason, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik A, Hage J (2000) Legal knowledge about what? Ratio Juris 13(3):325–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the Juror: the psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–221

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipps L (1999) Artificial morality and artificial law. Artif Intell Law 7(2):115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipps L, Sartor G (1999) Introduction: from legal theories to neural networks and fuzzy reasoning. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):51–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce CS (1931) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cogn Sci 11(4):481–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (1993) A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 192–201

  • Prakken H (1995) From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 165–74

  • Prakken H (2000) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. In: Beuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2001) Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae 48(2–3):253–271

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2001) Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, 119–128

  • Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):111–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2005) A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 85–94

  • Prakken H (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J Logic Comput 15(6):1009–1040

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2008) A formal model of adjudication dialogues. Artif Intell Law 16(3):305–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Arg Comput 1(2):93–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non Class Logics 7(1):25–75

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–9

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (2006) Presumptions and burdens of proof. In: van Engers TM (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2006: the nineteenth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–30

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (2007) Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 176–185

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (2008) More on presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscorina D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2008: the twenty-first annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–30

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. Legal evidence and burden of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof: statistics, stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (2011) On modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2011). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 83–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2004) Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the fourth workshop on computational models of natural argument. ECAI, Valencia, pp 81–86

  • Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2005) Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 15–124

  • Price SL, Nielsen ML, Delcambre LML, Vedsted P, Steinhauer J (2009) Using semantic components to search for domain-specfic documents: an evaluation from the system perspective. Inform Syst 34(8):724–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Rowe G (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 13(4):961–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter R (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artif Intell 13(1–2):81–132

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (1977) Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich E, Knight K (1991) Artificial intelligence, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland EL (1983) Examples in legal reasoning: legal hypotheticals. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. William Kaufman, MA, pp 90–93

  • Rissland EL (2009) Black swans, gray cygnets and other rare birds. In: Case-based reasoning research and development, eighth international conference on case-based reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 6–13

  • Rissland EL, Ashley KD (1987) A case-based system for trade secrets law. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 60–66

  • Rissland EL, Ashley KD (2002) A note on dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland EL, Collins RT (1986) The law as learning system. In: Proceedings eighth annual cognitive science society conference. Amherst, MA, pp 500–513

  • Rissland EL, Daniels JJ (1995) A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 52–61

  • Rissland EL, Friedman MT(1995) Detecting change in legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 127–136

  • Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989) Interpreting statutory predicates. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 46–53

  • Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989) Combining case-based and rule-based reasoning: a heuristic approach. In: Proceedings of eleventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, CA, pp 524–530

  • Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1991) CABARET: statutory interpretation on a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):39–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1993) BankXX: a program to generate argument through case-base search. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 117–124

  • Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1996) BankXX: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artif Intell Law 4(1):1–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1997) Evaluating a legal argument program: the BankXX experiments. Artif Intell Law 5(1–2):1–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland EL, Ashley KD, Branting LK (2005) Case-based reasoning and law. Knowl Eng Rev 20(3):293–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Dialectical arguments and case comparison. In: Gordon T (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2004: the seventeenth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 99–108

  • Saint-Dizier P (2012) Processing natural language arguments with the TextCoop platform. J Arg Comput 3(1):49–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Salton GM, Wong AKC, Yang C-S (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11):613–620

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor G (1993) A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–9

  • Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor G (2006) Fundamental legal concepts: a formal and teleological characterisation. Artif Intell Law 14(1–2):101–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor G (2010) Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif Intell Law 18(2):175–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank RC, Abelson RP (1997) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int J Comput Supp Collab Learn 5(1):43–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlobohm DA, McCarty LT (1989) EPS II: estate planning with prototypes. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10

  • Schweighofer E (1999) Legal knowledge representation, automatic text analysis in public international and European law. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweighofer E (2006) Computing law: from legal information systems to dynamic legal electronic commentaries. In: Sjberg CM, Wahlgren P (eds) Festskrift till Peter Seipel. Norsteds Juridik AB, Stockholm, pp 569–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweighofer E, Winiwarter W (1993) Legal expert system KONTERM—automatic representation of document structure and contents. In: Database and expert systems applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 486–497

  • Schweighofer E, Rauber A, Dittenbach M (2001) Automatic text representation, classification and labeling in European law. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 78–87

  • Sergot MJ (1982) Prospects for representing the law as logic programs. In: Clark KL, Tarnlund SA (eds) Logic programming. Academic Press, London, pp 33–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortliffe EH (1976) Computer-based medical consultations, MYCIN. Artificial intelligence series. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1991) Argument moves in a rule-guided domain. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11

  • Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1992) Arguments and cases: an inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1(1):3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JC (1997) The use of lexicons in information retrieval in legal databases. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 78–87

  • Stamper R (1980) LEGOL: modelling legal rules by computer. In: Niblett B (ed) Computer science and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Surdeanu M, Nallapati R, Gregory G, Walker J, Manning CD (2011) Risk analysis for intellectual property litigation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–236

  • Susskind R (1987) Expert systems in law: out of the research laboratory and into the marketplace. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–8

  • Teufel S (1999) Argumentative Zoning: information extraction from scientific text. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh

  • Teufel S, Moens M (2002) Summarizing scientific articles—experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Comput Linguist 28(4):409–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyree A (1989) Expert systems in law. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Valente A, Breuker J (1995) ON-LINE: an architecture for modelling legal information. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 307–315

  • Van den Braak SW (2010) Sensemaking software for crime analysis. Doctoral dissertation Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University

  • Van de Ven S, Breuker J, Hoekstra R, Wortel L (2008) Automated legal assessment in OWL 2. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscorina D (eds) Proceedings of Jurix 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 170–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelder T (2003) Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In: Kirschner PA, Shum SJB, Carr CS (eds) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Heijst G (1995) The role of ontologies in knowledge engineering. Ph.D. thesis, Social Science Informatics, University of Amsterdam

  • Verheij B (2005) Virtual arguments: on the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B, Bex FJ (2009) Accepting the truth of a story about the facts of a criminal case. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 161–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk G, Prakken H (2000) Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Proceedings of JELIA 2000. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–253

  • Wagenaar WA, Van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker VR (2007) Visualizing the dynamics around the rule/evidence interface in legal reasoning. Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):5–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wardeh M, Bench-Capon TJM, Coenen FP (2009) Padua: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. Artif Intell Law 17(3):183–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber RO, Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2005) Textual case-based reasoning. Knowl Eng Rev 20(3):255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore JH (1913) The principles of judicial proof or the process of proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner AZ (2008) An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 16(4):361–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyner AZ (2010) Towards annotating and extracting textual legal case elements. Informatica e Diritto 19(1–2):9–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner AZ, Peters W (2010) Lexical semantics and expert legal knowledge towards the identification of legal case factors. In: Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2010). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 127–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In: Lodder A, Mommens L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2007). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 151–160

  • Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2011) Formalising argumentation about legal cases. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10

  • Yoshino H (1995) The systematization of legal meta-inference. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 266–275

  • Yoshino H (1997) On the logical foundations of compound predicate formulae for legal knowledge representation. Artif Intell Law 5(1–2):77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshino H (2011) The systematization of law in terms of the validity. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 121–25

  • Yoshino H, Kakuta T (1993) The knowledge representation of legal expert system LES-3.3 with legal metainference. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium of legal expert system association. LESA, Tokyo, pp 1–9

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Trevor Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson & Adam Z. Wyner

  2. Department of Legal Theory, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland

    Michał Araszkiewicz

  3. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Kevin Ashley

  4. University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

    Floris Bex

  5. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Floris Bex & Henry Prakken

  6. Legal Information Systems, Paris, France

    Filipe Borges

  7. Law and Complex Systems, CNRS, Paris, France

    Daniele Bourcier

  8. Reseau National des Systemes Complexes, Paris, France

    Paul Bourgine

  9. Thomson Reuters Global Resources, Catalyst Lab, Baar, Switzerland

    Jack G. Conrad & Jochen L. Leidner

  10. Institute of Legal Theory and Techniques, Italian National Research Council (ITTIG-CNR), Florence, Italy

    Enrico Francesconi

  11. Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany

    Thomas F. Gordon

  12. NICTA, Queensland Research Laboratory, St. Lucia, Australia

    Guido Governatori

  13. David D. Lewis Consulting, Chicago, IL, USA

    David D. Lewis

  14. Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois-Springfield, Chicago, IL, USA

    Ronald P. Loui

  15. Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    L. Thorne McCarty

  16. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Henry Prakken

  17. Thomson Reuters Corporate Research and Development, Saint Paul, MN, USA

    Frank Schilder

  18. Faculty of Law, Centre for Computers and Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Erich Schweighofer

  19. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    Paul Thompson

  20. Thomson Reuters Corporate Research and Development, New York, NY, USA

    Alex Tyrrell

  21. Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Bart Verheij

  22. Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

    Douglas N. Walton

Authors
  1. Trevor Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michał Araszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin Ashley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katie Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Floris Bex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Filipe Borges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daniele Bourcier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paul Bourgine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jack G. Conrad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Enrico Francesconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Thomas F. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Guido Governatori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jochen L. Leidner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. David D. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ronald P. Loui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. L. Thorne McCarty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Frank Schilder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Erich Schweighofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Paul Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Alex Tyrrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Bart Verheij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Douglas N. Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Adam Z. Wyner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trevor Bench-Capon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bench-Capon, T., Araszkiewicz, M., Ashley, K. et al. A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law. Artif Intell Law 20, 215–319 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation