Cases and dialectical arguments - An approach to case-based reasoning

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3292, Issue , 2004, Pages 634-651

  Roth, Bram ^a   Verheij, Bart ^b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ONTOLOGY;

CONTIGENCY; EXPLICIT RECOGNITION; LEGAL ONTOLOGY; REASONING PATTERNS;

CASE BASED REASONING;

EID: 35048819604     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-30470-8_75     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Aleven, V. & Ashley, K.D. (1997). Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based Argumentation Skills. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 170-179. New York: ACM Press.
2. Aleven, V. (1996). How Different Is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences. Proceedings of the Third European Workshop: EWCBR-96, pp. 1-15.
3. Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Reasoning Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. dissertation University of Pittsburgh.
4. Ashley, K.D. (1989). Toward a Computational Theory of Arguing with Precedents: Accomodating Multiple Interpretations of Cases. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 93-102. New York: ACM Press.
5. Ashley, K.D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
6. Ashley, K.D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypothetical in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Volume 34, pp. 753-796.
7. Bankowski, Z. (1997). Rationales for Precedent. Interpreting Precedents. A comparative study (eds. MacCormick, D.N. and Summers, R.S.). Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited.
8. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. & Sartor, G. (2001). Theory Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 12-21. New York: ACM Press.
9. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (1999). Some Observations on Modelling Case Based Reasoning With Formal Argument Models. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 36-42. New York: ACM Press.
10. Cross, R. (1977). Precedent in English Law. Third edition. Oxford University Press.
11. Hage, J.C. (1997). Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library.
12. Llewellyn, K.N. (1960). The Common Law Tradition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
13. Loui, R.P. & Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Volums 3, pp. 159-189.
14. Loui, R.P. (1997). Eliding the Arguments of Cases. Draft. Downloaded from http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~Ioui/ratjur.txt.
15. MacCormick, D.N. (1987). Why Cases have Rationes and what these are. In: Precedent in Law (ed. Goldstein, L.), pp. 155-182. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
16. Mommers, L. (2002). Applied legal epistemology. Building a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain. Dissertation Leiden University.
17. Oliphant, H. (1928). A return to stare decisis. American Bar Association Journal, Volume 14.
18. Reprint in: American Legal Theory (ed. Summers, R.S. 1992), pp. 143-153. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited.
19. Pollock, J.L. (1987). Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science, Volume 11, pp. 481-518.
20. Pollock, J.L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry : A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21. Prakken, H. & Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Volume 6, pp. 231-287.
22. Prakken, H. (2000). An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000 (eds. Breuker, J., Leenes, R. and Winkels, R.), pp. 49-57. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
23. Roth, A.C. (2001). The Dialectics of Case Comparison: a Formal Reconstruction. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Jurix Conference (eds. Verheij, B., Lodder, A.R., Loui, R.P. and Muntjewerff, A.J.), 29-40.
24. Roth, A.C. (2003). Case-based reasoning in the law. A formal theory of reasoning by case comparison. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht.
25. Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. London: Cambridge University Press.
26. Valente, A. (1995). Legal Knowledge Engineering. A Modelling Approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam. Dissertation.
27. van Kralingen, R.W. (1995). Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law. Dissertation Leiden University.
28. Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht.
29. Verheij, B. (1999). Automated Argument Assistance for Lawyers. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 43-52. New York: ACM Press.
30. Verheij, B. (2000). DEFLOG - a logic of dialectical justification and defeat. Draft. Downloaded from http://www.metajur.unimaas.nl/~bart/publications. htm.
31. Verheij, B. (2003). DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation, Volume 13, no. 3, pp. 319-346.
32. Visser, P.R.S. & Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (1998). A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 27-57.
33. Visser, P.R.S. & Winkels, R. (eds.) (1997). Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies. LEGONT '97. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
34. Visser, P.R.S. (1995). Knowledge Specification for Multiple Legal Tasks. A Case Study of the Interaction Problem in the Legal Domain. Dissertation Leiden University.
35. Winkels, R., Van Engers, T. & Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) (2001). Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.