Presumptions and Burdens of Proof

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 152, Issue , 2006, Pages 21-30

  Prakken, Henry ^a   Sartor, Giovanni ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

argumentation; burden of proof; Evidence; presumptions

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION; BURDEN OF PROOF; DEFAULT RULE; EVIDENCE; LOGICAL MODELS; PRESUMPTION; TACTICALS;

EID: 85138990000     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (8)

1. T.F. Gordon and D.N. Walton. The Carneades argumentation framework - using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P.E. Dunne and T.B.C. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, pages 195–207, Amsterdam etc, 2006. IOS Press.
2. H. Prakken. Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48:253–271, 2001.
3. H. Prakken. Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 119–128, New York, 2001. ACM Press.
4. H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D.N. Walton. Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 115–124, New York, 2005. ACM Press.
5. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331–368, 1996.
6. G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and Philosophy Library, pages 119–157. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.
7. D.N. Walton. Metadialogues for resolving burden of proof disputes. Argumentation, 2006. To appear.
8. C.R. Williams. Burdens and standards in civil litigation. Sydney Law Review, 25:165–188, 2003.