ABSTRACT
Horty, Rigoni and Prakken have developed formal characterisations of precedential constraint based on dimensions and factors as introduced in HYPO and CATO. We discuss the relation between dimensions and factors and also describe the current models of precedential constraint based on factors, along with some criticisms of them. We argue that problems arise from ignoring the structure of legal cases that is provided by the notion of issues, and that seeing precedential constraint in terms of issues rather than whole cases provides a more effective approach and better reflects legal practice. The advantages of the issue based approach are illustrated with a concrete example. We then discuss how dimensions should be accommodated, suggesting that this is best done by seeing reasoning with legal cases as a two stage process: first factors are ascribed to cases and then factor based reasoning can be used to arrive at a decision. Thus precedential constraint can be described in terms of factors, dimensions being handled at the first stage. Both stages are constrained, in different ways, by precedents: we identify three types of precedent: framework precedents which structure cases into issues, preference precedents which resolve conflicts between opposing sets of factors within these issues, and ascription precedents which constrain the mapping from facts to factors.
- Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2015. Factors, issues and values: Revisiting reasoning with cases. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on AI and Law. 3--12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2016. A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using ADFs. AI and Law 24, 1 (2016), 1--49.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vincent Aleven. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. Ph.D. thesis. University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
- Vincent Aleven and Kevin D Ashley. 1995. Doing things with factors. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI and Law. 31--41.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Larry Alexander. 1989. Constrained by precedent. Southern California Law Review 63 (1989), 1--64.Google Scholar
- Kevin D Ashley. 1990. Modeling legal arguments: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
- Kevin D Ashley and Stefanie Brüninghaus. 2009. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. AI and Law 17, 2 (2009), 125--165.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 1991. Practical legal expert systems: the relation between a formalisation of legislation and expert knowledge. In Law, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, M Bennun and A Narayanan (Eds.). Ablex, 191--201.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 1999. Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on AI and Law. 36--42.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 2017. HYPO's legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. AI and Law 25, 2 (2017), 205--250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 2020. Explaining Legal Decisions Using IRAC. In Proceedings of CMNA 2020. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2669, 74--83.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson. 2017. Dimensions and Values for Legal CBR. In Proceeding of JURIX 2017. 27--32.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson. 2018. Lessons from Implementing Factors with Magnitude. In Proceedings of JURIX 2018. 11--20.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Floris Bex. 2015. Cases and Stories, Dimensions and Scripts.. In Proceedings of JURIX 2015. 11--20.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Edwina L Rissland. 2001. Back to the future: Dimensions revisited. In Proceedings of JURIX 2001. IOS Press, 41--52.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Giovanni Sartor. 2003. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150, 1--2 (2003), 97--143.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L Karl Branting. 1991. Reasoning with portions of precedents. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on AI and Law. 145--154.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L Karl Branting. 2020. Explanation in Hybrid, Two-Stage Models of Legal Prediction. In The 3rd XAILA Workshop at JURIX 2020.Google Scholar
- L Karl Branting, Craig Pfeifer, Bradford Brown, Lisa Ferro, John Aberdeen, Brandy Weiss, Mark Pfaff, and Bill Liao. 2020. Scalable and explainable legal prediction. AI and Law (2020), 1--26.Google Scholar
- Stefanie Brüninghaus and Kevin Ashley. 2003. A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In Proceedings of Jurix 2003. 153--62.Google Scholar
- Stefanie Brüninghaus and Kevin D Ashley. 2003. Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on AI and Law. 233--242.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alison Chorley and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2005. An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. AI and Law 13, 3 (2005), 323--371.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas F Gordon and Douglas Walton. 2016. Formalizing Balancing Arguments.. In Proceedings of COMMA 2016. 327--338.Google Scholar
- Matthias Grabmair. 2017. Predicting trade secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on AI and Law. 89--98.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Henderson and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2019. Describing the development of case law. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on AI and Law. 32--41.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John F Horty. 2011. Reasons and precedent. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on AI and Law. 41--50.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John F Horty. 2017. Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. In Proceedings of the 16th the International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law. 109--118.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John F Horty. 2019. Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. AI and Law 27, 3 (2019), 309--345.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John F Horty. 2021. Modifying the Reason Model. AI and Law (2021), On Line.Google Scholar
- John F Horty and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2012. A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. AI and Law 20, 2 (2012), 181--214.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grant Lamond. 2005. Do precedents create rules. Legal Theory 11 (2005), 1--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marc Lauritsen. 2015. On balance. AI and Law 23, 1 (2015), 23--42.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lars Lindahl and Jan Odelstad. 2006. Open and closed intermediaries in normative systems. In Proceedings of JURIX 2006. IOS Press, 91--99.Google Scholar
- Jo Desha Lucas. 1983. The direct and collateral estoppel effects of alternative holdings. The University of Chicago Law Review 50, 2 (1983), 701--730.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Masha Medvedeva, Michel Vols, and Martijn Wieling. 2019. Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. AI and Law (2019), 1--30.Google Scholar
- Henry Prakken. 2019. Modelling accrual of arguments in ASPIC+. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on AI and Law. 103--112.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henry Prakken. 2021. A A formal analysis of some factor- and precedent-based accounts of precedential constraint. AI and Law (2021), Available On-Line.Google Scholar
- Henry Prakken and Ratsma Rosa. 2021. A top-level model of case-based argumentation for explanation: formalisation and experiments. Argument and Computation (2021), Available On-line.Google Scholar
- Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. 1998. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. AI and Law 6, 3--4 (1998), 231--87.Google Scholar
- Henry Prakken, Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Katie Atkinson. 2015. A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. Journal of Logic and Computation 25, 5 (2015), 1141--1166.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adam Rigoni. 2015. An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. AI and Law 23, 2 (2015), 133--160.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adam Rigoni. 2018. Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent. AI and Law 26, 1 (2018), 1--22.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edwina L Rissland and Kevin D Ashley. 1987. A case-based system for Trade Secrets law. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on AI and Law. 60--66.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edwina L Rissland and Kevin D Ashley. 2002. A note on dimensions and factors. AI and Law 10, 1--3 (2002), 65--77.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alf Ross. 1957. Tû-tû. Harvard Law Review (1957), 812--825.Google Scholar
- Frederick Schauer. 1987. Precedent. Stanford Law Review (1987), 571--605.Google Scholar
- Marek Sergot, Fariba Sadri, Robert Kowalski, Frank Kriwaczek, Peter Hammond, and Therese H Cory. 1986. The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Commun. ACM 29, 5 (1986), 370--386.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David B Skalak and Edwina L Rissland. 1992. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. AI and Law 1, 1 (1992), 3--44.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard E Susskind. 1989. The Latent Damage system: A jurisprudential analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on AI and Law. 23--32.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heng Zheng, Davide Grossi, and Bart Verheij. 2020. Case-Based Reasoning with Precedent Models: Preliminary Report. In Proceedings of COMMA 2020. 443--450.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Precedential constraint: the role of issues
Recommendations
Hierarchical Precedential Constraint
ICAIL '23: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawIn recent work, theories of case-based legal reasoning have been applied to the development of explainable artificial intelligence methods, through the analogy of training examples as previously decided cases. One such theory is that of precedential ...
A formal analysis of some factor- and precedent-based accounts of precedential constraint
AbstractIn this paper several recent factor- and dimension-based models of precedential constraint are formally investigated and an alternative dimension-based model is proposed. Simple factor- and dimension-based syntactic criteria are identified for ...
Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent
This paper gives an account of dimensions in the reason model found in Horty (Legal Theory 17(1): 1---33, 2011), Horty and Bench-Capon (in: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 109---118, ACM Press, ...
Comments