Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 217-246

  Walton, Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

Argument from classification; Argumentation; Case based reasoning; Stories

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENT FROM CLASSIFICATION; ARGUMENTATION; STORIES;

CASE BASED REASONING;

EID: 79951771594     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: 15728382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-010-9102-z     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Aleven V (1997) Teaching case based argumentation through an example and models. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
2. Ashley K (1988) Arguing by analogy in law: A case-based model. In: Helman DH (ed) Analogical reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 205-224
3. Ashley K (2004) Capturing the dialectic between principles and cases. Jurimetrics 44:229-279
4. Ashley K (2006) Case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Oskamp A (eds) Information technology and lawyers. Springer, Berlin, pp 23-60
5. Ashley K (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological and hypothetical reasoning. In: Proceeding of ICAIL 2009: 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. New York: Association for computing machinery, pp 1-10
6. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In: Sartor G (ed) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 35-44
7. Bench-Capon TJM (2009) Dimension based representation of popov v hayashi. In: Atkinson K (ed) Modelling legal cases. Huygens editorial, Barcelona, pp 41-52
8. Bench-Capon TJM (2010) Representing popov v. hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law (to appear)
9. Bex F (2009a) Evidence for a good story: A hybrid theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. PhD thesis,University of Groningen
10. Bex F (2009b) Analysing stories using schemes. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, VerheijLegal B (eds) Evidence and proof: Statistics stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 93-116
11. Bex F, Prakken H (2008) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73-84
12. Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towa (Pubitemid 40672192)
13. Brewer S (1996) Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harv Law Rev 109:923-1038
14. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006a) The carneades argumentation framework, computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195-207
15. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006b) Pierson v. Post revisited, Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 208-219
16. Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239-260
17. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171:875-896 (Pubitemid 47285070)
18. Gray BE (2002) Reported and recommendations on the law of capture and first possession: Popov v. hayashi. Superior of the State of California for the city and county of San Francisco, case no. 400545, November 6, 2002. Available May 24, 2009 at: http://web.mac.com/graybe/Site/Writings-files/Hayashi%20Brief. pdf
19. Guarini M (2004) A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Log 24:153-168
20. Guarini M, Butchart A, Simard Smith P, Moldovan A (2009) Resources for research on analogy: A multidisciplinary guide. Informal Log 29(2):84-197
21. Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London
22. Hart HLA (1949) The ascription of responsibility and rights. In: Proceedings of the aristotelian society, vol 49, pp 171-194. Reprinted in logic and language, Flew A (ed) Blackwell, Oxford, 1951, pp 145-166
23. Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
24. Leake DB (1992) Evaluating explanations: A content theory. Erlbaum, New Jersey
25. Loui RP (1995) Hart's critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism.In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 21-30. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=222099
26. Macagno F, Walton D (2009) Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philos Rhetor 42:154-182
27. McCarthy KM (2002) Statement of decision. Superior court of California, December 12, 2002, Case of Popov v. Hayahsi #4005545: www.findlaw
28. McCarty LT, Sridharan NS (1982) A computational theory of legal argument. LRP-TR-13. Laboratory for computer science research. New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp 1-36
29. McLaren BM (2003) Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: An AI model. Artif Intell J 150:145-181
30. McLaren BM (2006) Computational models of ethical reasoning: challenges, initial steps, and future directions.In: IEEE intelligent systems. Published by the IEEE Computer Society, July/August, pp 29-37
31. Patry W (2005/06) The patry copyright blog. Accessed 22 Jul 2010. http://williampatry.blogspot.com/ 2005/06/striking-similarity-and-evidentiary. html
32. Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192-221
33. Prakken H (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J Logic Comput 15:1009-1040 (Pubitemid 41806518)
34. Schank RC (1986) Explanation patterns: understanding mechanically and creatively. Erlbaum, New Jersey
35. Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, New Jersey
36. Schauer F (1987) Precedent. Stanford Law Rev 39(3):571-605
37. Schauer F (2009) Thinking like a lawyer. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
38. Thomson J (1971) A defense of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1(1):47-66
39. Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire
40. Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IAAIL workshop series international workshop on argumentation in artificial intelligence and law. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 103-111
41. Walton D, Gordon TF (2009) Jumping to a conclusion: fallacies and standards of proof. Informal Log 29:215-243
42. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
43. Weinreb LL (2005) Legal reason: the use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
44. Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder A, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 139-149
45. Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of popov v. hayashi. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp 151-160