An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 13, Issue 3-4, 2005, Pages 323-371

  Chorley, Alison ^a   Bench Capon, Trevor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Case based reasoning; Factors and dimensions; Legal knowledge based systems; Legal reasoning; Theory construction

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; SET THEORY;

CASE BASED REASONING; LEGAL REASONING; THEORY CONSTRUCTION;

LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

EID: 33846611349     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: 15728382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-006-9016-y     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models, PhD Thesis, The University of Pittsburgh.
2. Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modelling Legal Argument. Bradford Books, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
3. Ashley, K. and Bruninghaus, S. (2003). A Predictive Role for Intermediate Legal Concepts. In Proceedings Jurix 03, 153-162. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
4. Ashley, K. D. (2004). Case-Based Models of Legal Reasoning in a Civil Law Context. Invited paper. International Congress of Comparative Cultures and Legal Systems of the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Mexico City.
5. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1991a). Practical Legal Expert Systems: the Relation Between a Formalisation of Law and Expert Knowledge. In Bennun and Narayanan (eds.), Computers, 191-201. Law and AI, Ablex.
6. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1991b). Knowledge Based Systems Applied To Law: A Framework for Discussion, In Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (ed.), Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, 329-342, Academic Press.
7. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2002). The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10(2-3): 79-94.
8. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Rissland, E. L. (2001). Back to the Future: Dimensions Revisited: In Verheij, B., Lodder, A. R., Loui, R. P. and Muntjewerff, A. J. (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems., 41-52. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
9. Bench-Capon, T. and Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2): 97-143.
10. Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case Based Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, 50-59, ACM Press, New York.
11. Brüninghaus, S and Ashley, K. D. (2003). Predicting Outcomes of Case-based Legal Arguments. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law, 233-242. ACM Press: New York.
12. Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. (2003a). Developing Legal Knowledge Based Systems Through Theory Construction. Technical Report ULCS-03-013, Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/ research/techreports/tr2003/ulcs-03-013.pdf.
13. Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. (2003b). Developing Legal Knowledge Based Systems Through Theory Construction. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law, 85-86. ACM Press: New York.
14. Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. (2003c). Reasoning with Legal Cases as Theory Construction: Some Experimental Results: In Bourcier, D. (ed.), Proceedings of Jurix 2003, 173-182. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
15. Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. (2004a). Support for Constructing Theories in Case Law Domains: In Galindo, F., Takizawa, M. and Traunmuller, R. (eds.). Proceedings of DEXA 2004. LNCS 3180, 508-517. Springer Verlag: Berlin.
16. Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. (2004b). AGATHA: Automation of the Construction of Theories in Case Law Domains. In Proceedings of Jurix 2004, 89-98. IOS Press Amsterdam.
17. Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. (2005). AGATHA: Automated construction of Case Law Theories Through Heuristic search. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on AI and Law, 45-54. ACM Press: New York.
18. Hage, J. C. (2001). Formalizing legal coherence. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 22-31. ACM: New York.
19. Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
20. Lipinski, T. A. and Britz, J. J. (2000). Rethinking the ownership of information in the 21st century: Ethical implications, 2: 49-71.
21. MacCormick, D. N. and Summers, R. S. (eds.), (1997). Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study. Dartmouth Publishing: Aldershot, U.K.
22. McCarty, L.T. (1995). An Implementation of Eisner v Macomber. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, 276-286. ACM Press: New York.
23. Prakken, H. (2000). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case Based Reasoning: In Breuker, J., Leenes, R. and Winkels, R. (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000, 49-57. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
24. Prakken, H. (2002). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case-Based Reasoning, 10(1-3): 113-133.
25. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game, 6: 231-287.
26. Rissland, E. and Ashley, K. (2002). A Note on Dimensions and Factors, 10(1-3): 65-77.
27. Sartor, G. (2002). Teleological Arguments and Theory-Based Dialectics, 10(2-3): 95-112.
28. Sergot, M. J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R. A., Krivaczek, K., Hammond, P. and Cory, H. T. (1986). The British Nationality Act as A Logic Program, 29(5): 370-386.
29. Skalak, D. and Rissland, E. (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining, 1(1): 3-44.