Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Case-based Reasoning as Practical Reasoning

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we apply a general account of practical reasoning to arguing about legal cases. In particular, we provide a reconstruction of the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions for a particular well-known case from property law. This is done through the use of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents to replicate the contrasting views involved in the actual decision. This reconstruction suggests that the reasoning involved can be separated into three distinct levels: factual and normative levels and a level connecting the two, with conclusions at one level forming premises at the next. We begin by summarising our general approach, which uses instantiations of an argumentation scheme to provide presumptive justifications for actions, and critical questions to identify arguments which attack these justifications. These arguments and attacks are organised into argumentation frameworks to identify the status of individual arguments. We then discuss the levels of reasoning that occur in this reconstruction and the properties and significance of each of these levels. We illustrate the different levels with short examples and also include a discussion of the role of precedents within these levels of reasoning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

  • Ashley K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley K. D., Brüninghaus S. (2003). A Predictive Role for Intermediate Legal Concepts. In Bourcier D. (eds), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2003). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, IOS Press, 153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney, P. (2004a). Attacks on a Presumptive Argument Scheme in Multi-Agent Systems: Pre-Conditions in Terms of Beliefs and Desires. Technical Report ULCS-04-015, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK

  • Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney P. (2004b). Justifying Practical Reasoning. In Grasso, F., Reed, C., and Carenini, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), 87-90. Valencia, Spain

  • Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney, P. (2005a). Persuasive Political Argument. In Grasso, F., Reed, C. and Kibble, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2005), 44–51, Edinburgh, Scotland

  • Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. and Modgil, S. (2005b). Value Added: Processing Information with Argumentation. Technical Report ULCS-05-004, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK

  • Bench-Capon, T. (1989). Deep Models, Normative Reasoning and Legal Expert Systems. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1989), 37–45. ACM Press: New York, USA

  • Bench-Capon, T. (1991a). Knowledge Based Systems Applied to Law: A Framework for Discussion. Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications: 329–342

  • Bench-Capon, T. (1991b). Practical Legal Expert Systems: The Relation Between a Formalisation of Law and Expert Knowledge, 191–201. Ablex

  • Bench-Capon, T. (2002a). Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework. In Bench-Capon, T., Daskalopoulu, A. and Winkels, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2002), 103–112. IOS Press: Amsterdam

  • Bench-Capon T. (2002b). The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10(1–3):79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T. (2003a) Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3):429–48

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T. (2003b) Try to See it My Way: Modelling Persuasion in Legal Discourse. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(4):271–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T., Rissland E. (2001). Back to the Future: Dimensions Revisited. In Verheij B., Lodder A., Loui R., Muntjewerff A. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2001). Amsterdman, The Netherlands, IOS Press, pp. 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T., Sartor G. (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2):97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. and Stainford, G. (1995) PLAID: Proactive Legal Assistance. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1995), 81-88. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1993), 50-59. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • Branting, K. L. (2003). An Agenda for Empirical Research in AI and Law. In Working Papers of the ICAIL’03 Workshop on Evaluation of Legal Reasoning and Problem-Solving Systems, 28–35. Edinburgh, UK

  • Breuker, J. and den Haan, N. (1991). Separating World and Regulation Knowledge, Where is the Logic? In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1991), 92–97. ACM Press: New York, USA

  • Brüninghaus, S. and Ashley, K. D. (2003) Predicting Outcomes of Case-Based Legal Arguments. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2003), 233–242. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • Dung P. M. (1995). On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmono-tonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77:321–357

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. (1987). An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning

  • Georgeff, M. P. and Lansky, A. L. (1987). Reactive Reasoning and Planning. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), 677–682. Seattle, WA

  • Greenwood, K., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney, P. (2003). Towards a Computational Account of Persuasion in Law. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2003), 22–31. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • Hart H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl L. (2004). Deduction and Justification in the Law the Role of Legal Terms and Concepts. Ratio Juris 17(2):182–202

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, L. and Odelstad, J. (2004). Normative Positions within an Algebraic Approach to Normative Systems. Journal of Applied Logic 17(2): 2005 To appear

  • Lutomski, L. S. (1989). The Design of an Attorney’s Statistical Consultant. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1989), 224–233. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • Marshall, C. C. (1989). Representing the Structure of a Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1989), 121–127. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • McCarty, L. T. (1995). An Implementation of Eisner v Macomber. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1995), 276–286. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • McCarty, L. T. and Sridharan, M. S. (1982). A Computational Theory of Legal Argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Computer Science Department, Rutgers University

  • Neligan D. (1979). Social Security Case Law: Digest of Commissioner’s Decisions. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H. (2002) An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10(1–3):113–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003). Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations in Reasoning About Evidence. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2003), 32–41. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

  • Prakken H., Sartor G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3-4):331–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A. (1951). Tu-tu. In Borum, O. and Illum, K. (eds.), Festskrift til Henry Ussing. Kobenhavn Juristforbundet

  • Sartor G. (2002). Teleological Arguments and Theory Based Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10(1–3):95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Trollope A. (1986). The American Senator. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Valente A. (1995). Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling Approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2–3):167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1996). Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge M. J. (2000). Reasoning About Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

    Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon

Authors
  1. Katie Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trevor Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trevor Bench-Capon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. Legal Case-based Reasoning as Practical Reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13, 93–131 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9003-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9003-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation