Out of their minds: Legal theory in neural networks

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 129-151

  Hunter, Dan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEURAL NETWORKS;

CONNECTIONISMS; LEGAL REASONING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0033365924     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1008301122056     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Andersen, J.A. and Rosenfeld, E. (eds.) 1989. Neurocomputing: Foundations of Research. Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Ashley, K.D. 1992. Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(2), 113-208.
3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 1993. Neural networks and open texture. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Amsterdam: ACM Press, pp. 292-297.
4. Birmingham, R. 1992. A study after Cardozo: De Cicco v. Schweizer, noncooperative games, and neural computing, University of Miami Law Review 47, 121-145.
5. Bochereau, L., Bourcier, D., and Bourgine, P. 1991. Extracting legal knowledge by means of a multilayer neural network application to municipal jurisprudence. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 288-296.
6. Boyle, J.D.A. 1985. The anatomy of a torts class, American University Law Review 34, 1003.
7. Fausett, L.V. 1994. Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
8. Fernhout, F. 1989. Using a parallel distributed processing model as part of a legal expert system. In A.A. Martino (ed.), Pre-Proceedings of Third International Conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto, Volume 1, Firenze: IDG, pp. 255-268.
9. Fish, S. 1982. Working on the chain gang: Interpretation in law and literature, Texas Law Review 60, 551-567.
10. Fish, S. 1983. Wrong again, Texas Law Review 62, 299-316.
11. Frank, J. 1930. Law and the Modern Mind. Brentano. Republished 1963, Garden City: Anchor Books, 1970, Gloucester: Peter Smith.
12. Gallant, S. 1993. Neural Network Learning and Expert Systems.
13. Gray, J.C. 1924. The Nature and Sources of Law. 2nd ed, New York: Macmillan.
14. Groendijk, C. and Oskamp, A. 1993. Case recognition and strategy classification. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Amsterdam: ACM Press, pp. 125-132.
15. Hobson, J.B and Slee, D. 1993 Rules, cases and networks in a legal domain, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence 2(2), 119-134.
16. Hobson, J.B. and Slee, D. 1994 Indexing the Theft Act 1968 for case based reasoning and artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, unnumbered additions, Exeter: Exeter University Centre for Legal Interdisciplinary Development.
17. Holmes, O.W. 1881. The Common Law. Boston: Little Brown & Co; reprinted London: Macmillan, 1968.
18. Holmes, O.W. 1897. The path of the law, Harvard Law Review 10(8), 457.
19. Hunter, D. 1994. Looking for law in all the wrong places: Legal theory and legal neural networks. In H. Prakken, A.J. Muntjewerff, A. Soeteman, and R. Winkels (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems: The Relation with Legal Theory. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, pp. 55-64.
20. Kennedy, D. 1986. Freedom and constraint in adjudication: A critical phenomenology, Journal of Legal Education 36, 518.
21. Kennedy, D. 1991. A semiotics of legal argument. Syracuse Law Review 42, 75.
22. Kort, F. 1963a. Content analysis of judicial opinions and rules of law. In G. Schubert (ed.), Judicial Decision-Making, International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research, Vol. 4. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 133-197.
23. Kort, F. 1963b. Simultaneous equations and boolean algebra in the analysis of judicial decisions, Law and Contemporary Problems 28(1), 143.
24. Kort, F. 1965. Quantitative analysis of fact patterns in cases and their impact on judicial decision, Harvard Law Review 79, 1595.
25. Lawlor, R.C. 1963. What computers can do: Analysis and prediction of judicial decisions, American Bar Association Journal 49(4), 337-344.
26. Lawlor, R.C. 1964. Stare decisis and electronic computers. In G. Schubert (ed.), Judicial Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 503-505.
27. Lawlor, R.C. 1968. Personal stare decisis, Southern California Law Review 41, 73-118.
28. Lawlor, R.C. 1972. Fact content of cases and precedent - A modern theory of precedent. Jurimetrics Journal 12(4), 245-270.
29. Lawlor, R.C. 1981. Analysis and prediction of judicial decisions, in R.P. Bigelow (ed), Computers and the Law: An Introductory Handbook (third edition). Chicago: American Bar Association, pp. 81-84.
30. Llewellyn, K.N. 1931. Some realism about realism - Responding to Dean Pound, Harvard Law Review 44(8), 1222.
31. Llewellyn, K.N. 1940. The normative, the legal and the law-jobs: The problem of juristic method, Yale Law Journal 49, 1355
32. Luger, G.F. and Stubblefield, W.A. 1993. Artificial intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving. 2nd ed, Redwood City: Benjamin Cummings.
33. McBarnett, D. 1981. Conviction: Law, the State, and the Construction of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
34. McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D., and the PDP Research Group. 1988. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
35. Michelman, F.I. 1983. Reflections on professional education, legal scholarship, and the law-and-economics movement. Journal of Legal Education 33, 197-209.
36. Nagel, S.S. 1960. Using simple calculations to predict judicial decisions, American Behavioral Scientist 4(4), 24-28.
37. Nagel, S.S. 1963, Off-the-bench judicial attitudes. In G. Schubert (ed.), Judicial Decision-Making, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 29-53.
38. Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, the State and Utopia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
39. Oskamp, A., Walker, R.F., Schrickx, J.A., and van den Berg, P.H. 1989. PROLEXS divide and rule: A legal application. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver: ACM Press, pp. 54-62.
40. Philipps, L. 1989. Are legal decisions based on the application of rules or prototype recognition? Legal science on the way to neural networks. In Pre-Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto. Florence: IDG, p. 673.
41. Philipps, L. 1991. Distribution of damages in car accidents through the use of neural networks, Cardozo Law Review 13, 987-1000.
42. Popple, J. 1993. SHYSTER: A Pragmatic Legal Expert System. PhD. diss., Department of Computer Science, Australian National University.
43. Raghupathi, W. et al. 1991. Exploring connectionist approaches to legal decision making, Behavioural Science 36, 133-139.
44. Rawls, J. 1972. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
45. Rose, D.E. and Belew, R.K. 1989. Legal information retrieval - A hybrid approach. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Vancouver: ACM Press, pp. 138-146.
46. Rose, D.E. and Belew, R.K. 1991. A connectionist and symbolic hybrid for improving legal research, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(1), 1-33.
47. Rose, D.E. 1994 A symbolic and Connectionist Legal Information Retrieval System. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Schubert, G. (ed.) 1964. Judicial Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.
49. Schubert, G. 1968. The importance of computer technology to political science research in judicial behavior, Jurimetrics Journal 8(3), 56-63.
50. Stranieri, A., Gawler, M., and Zeleznikow, J. 1994. Toulmin structures as a higher level abstraction for hybrid reasoning. In Proceedings of the Seventh Australian Artificial Intelligence Congress. Armidale: World Scientific, pp. 203-210.
51. Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 1992. SPLIT-UP - Expert system (sic) to determine spousal property distribution on litigation in the Family Court of Australia. In Proceedings of the Fifth Artificial Intelligence Congress. Hobart: World Scientific, pp. 51-56.
52. Terrett, A. 1995. Neural networks - Towards predictive law machines, International Journal of Law and Information Technology 3(1), 95-111.
53. Thagard, P. 1991. Connectionism and legal inference. Cardozo Law Review 13, 1001-1004.
54. van Opdorp, G.J. and Walker, R.F. 1990. A neural network approach to open texture. In H.W.K. Kasperen and A. Oskamp (eds), Amongst Friends in Computers and Law, Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation.
55. van Opdorp, G.J., Walker, R.F., Schrickx, J.A., Groendijk, C., and van den Berg, P.H. 1991. Networks at work: a connectionist approach to non-deductive legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 278-287.
56. Walker, R.F., Oskamp, A., Schrickx, J.A., Opdorp, G.J., and van den Berg, P.H. 1991. PROLEXS: Creating law and order in a heterogeneous domain. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(1), 35-68.
57. Warner, D.R. 1989. Towards a simple law machine, Jurimetrics 29, 451-467.
58. Warner, D.R. 1990. The role of neural networks in law machine development. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 16, 129-144.
59. Warner, D.R. 1992. A neural network based law machine: Initial steps, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 18, 51-63.
60. Warner, D.R. 1993. A neural network-based law machine: The problem of legitimacy, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence 2(2), 135-147.
61. Winston, P.H. 1992. Artificial Intelligence. Third edition, Reading, Addison Wesley.
62. Zurada, J.M. 1992. Introduction to Artificial Neural Systems. St Paul: West Publishing.