skip to main content
10.1145/3462757.3466062acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Precedential constraint: the role of issues

Published:27 July 2021Publication History

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Vincent Aleven. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. Ph.D. thesis. University of Pittsburgh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Larry Alexander. 1989. Constrained by precedent. Southern California Law Review 63 (1989), 1--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kevin D Ashley. 1990. Modeling legal arguments: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT press, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kevin D Ashley and Stefanie Brüninghaus. 2009. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. AI and Law 17, 2 (2009), 125--165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Trevor Bench-Capon. 2017. HYPO's legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. AI and Law 25, 2 (2017), 205--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Trevor Bench-Capon. 2020. Explaining Legal Decisions Using IRAC. In Proceedings of CMNA 2020. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2669, 74--83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson. 2017. Dimensions and Values for Legal CBR. In Proceeding of JURIX 2017. 27--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson. 2018. Lessons from Implementing Factors with Magnitude. In Proceedings of JURIX 2018. 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Trevor Bench-Capon and Floris Bex. 2015. Cases and Stories, Dimensions and Scripts.. In Proceedings of JURIX 2015. 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Trevor Bench-Capon and Edwina L Rissland. 2001. Back to the future: Dimensions revisited. In Proceedings of JURIX 2001. IOS Press, 41--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. L Karl Branting. 1991. Reasoning with portions of precedents. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on AI and Law. 145--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L Karl Branting. 2020. Explanation in Hybrid, Two-Stage Models of Legal Prediction. In The 3rd XAILA Workshop at JURIX 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Stefanie Brüninghaus and Kevin Ashley. 2003. A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In Proceedings of Jurix 2003. 153--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Thomas F Gordon and Douglas Walton. 2016. Formalizing Balancing Arguments.. In Proceedings of COMMA 2016. 327--338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. John F Horty. 2011. Reasons and precedent. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on AI and Law. 41--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. John F Horty. 2019. Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. AI and Law 27, 3 (2019), 309--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. John F Horty. 2021. Modifying the Reason Model. AI and Law (2021), On Line.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. John F Horty and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2012. A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. AI and Law 20, 2 (2012), 181--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Grant Lamond. 2005. Do precedents create rules. Legal Theory 11 (2005), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Marc Lauritsen. 2015. On balance. AI and Law 23, 1 (2015), 23--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Lars Lindahl and Jan Odelstad. 2006. Open and closed intermediaries in normative systems. In Proceedings of JURIX 2006. IOS Press, 91--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Henry Prakken. 2019. Modelling accrual of arguments in ASPIC+. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on AI and Law. 103--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Adam Rigoni. 2015. An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. AI and Law 23, 2 (2015), 133--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Adam Rigoni. 2018. Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent. AI and Law 26, 1 (2018), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Edwina L Rissland and Kevin D Ashley. 2002. A note on dimensions and factors. AI and Law 10, 1--3 (2002), 65--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Alf Ross. 1957. Tû-tû. Harvard Law Review (1957), 812--825.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Frederick Schauer. 1987. Precedent. Stanford Law Review (1987), 571--605.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. David B Skalak and Edwina L Rissland. 1992. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. AI and Law 1, 1 (1992), 3--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Heng Zheng, Davide Grossi, and Bart Verheij. 2020. Case-Based Reasoning with Precedent Models: Preliminary Report. In Proceedings of COMMA 2020. 443--450.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Precedential constraint: the role of issues

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICAIL '21: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
      June 2021
      319 pages
      ISBN:9781450385268
      DOI:10.1145/3462757

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 July 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate69of169submissions,41%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader