Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural

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

Abstract

Computational models of relevance in case-based legal reasoning have traditionallybeen based on algorithms for comparing the facts and substantive legal issues of aprior case to those of a new case. In this paper we argue that robust models ofcase-based legal reasoning must also consider the broader social and jurisprudentialcontext in which legal precedents are decided. We analyze three aspects of legalcontext: the teleological relations that connect legal precedents to the socialvalues and policies they serve, the temporal relations between prior andsubsequent cases in a legal domain, and the procedural posture of legal cases,which defines the scope of their precedential relevance. Using real examples drawnfrom appellate courts of New York and Massachusetts, we show with the courts' ownarguments that the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., similar facts should lead to similar results) is subject to contextual constraints and influences. For each of the three aspects of legal context, we outline an expanded computational framework for case-based legal reasoning that encompasses the reasoning of the examples, and provides a foundation for generating a more robust set of legal arguments.

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

Article Open access 16 November 2016

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon

References

  • Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Bradford Books/MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. (1988). Arguing by Analogy in Law: A Case-Based Model. In Helman, D. (ed.), Analogical Reasoning, 205–224. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. and Rissland, E. L. (1987). But, See, Accord: Generating “Blue Book” Citations in HYPO. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 67–74. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V. and Ashley, K. D. (1994). An Instructional Environment for Practicing Argumentation Skills. In Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), 485–492. AAAI Press: Menlo Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1991). Incorporating Procedural Context into a Model of Case-Based Legal Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12–20. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 50–60. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1995). Understanding Precedents in a Temporal Context of Evolving Legal Doctrine. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 42–51. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. (1989). The Need for a Medium Grain Choice of Law Filter in Certain Legal Expert Systems. In Martino, A. (ed.) Pre-Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logica Informatica Diritto, 65–81. Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche: Florence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, K. (1991). Reasoning with Portions of Precedents. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 145–154. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, K. (1994). A Computational Model of Ratio Decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(1): 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill, B. and McCartney, R. (1994). Issue Spotting in CHASER. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(2): 83–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukeminier, J. and Krier, J. (1988). Teacher's Manual, Property Law, 2nd ed. Little, Brown: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. (1930). Law and the Modern Mind. Brentano's: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L. (1958). Positivism and Fidelity to Law - A Reply to Professor Hart. 71 Harvard Law Review 630

  • Gardner, A. (1987). An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Bradford Books/MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. (1994). The Pleadings Game: An Exercise in Computational Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(4): 239–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groendijk, C. and Oskamp, A. (1993). Case Recognition and Strategy Classification. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 125–132. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. (1981). An Information Retrieval System Based on a Computer Model of Legal Knowledge. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Michigan. UMI Research Press: Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. (1987). Conceptual Organization of Case Law Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 35–42. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. 71 Harvard Law Review 593.

  • Hayes-Roth, F., Waterman, D. A., and Lenat. D. B. (eds.) (1983). Building Expert Systems. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., and Lodder, A. N. (1994). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(2): 113–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. 23 Yale Law J. 16.

  • Holmes, O. (1897). The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review 10: 457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (1991). A Semiotics of Legal Argument. Syracuse Law Review 42(1): 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: hicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leake, D. B. (ed.) (1996). Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions. AAAI Press/MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(3): 159–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. and Sridharan, N. S. (1981). The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts II: Prototypes and Deformations. Proceedings of IJCAI-81, 246–253.

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. In Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (eds.), Logical Models of Legal Argumentation, 175–212. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesbeck, C. K. and Schank, R. C. (1989). Inside Case-Based Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. (1985). Argument Moves and Hypotheticals. In Walters, C. (ed.), Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, 129–143. West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Valcarce, E. M., and Ashley, K. D. (1984). Explaining and Arguing with Examples. Proceedings of the Fourth National on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84), 288–294, Austin, TX.

  • Rissland, E. L. and Ashley, K. D. (1987). A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 61–67. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1991) CABARET: Statutory Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies (34): 839–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., and Friedman, M. T. (1996). BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments through Heuristic Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(1): 1–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. and Ashley, K. D. (2002). A Note on Dimensions and Factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10.

  • Rose, D. E. (1994). A Symbolic and Connectionist Approach to Legal Information Retrieval. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. and Leake, D. (1990). Creativity and Learning in a Case-based Explainer. In Carbonnell, J. (ed.), Machine Learning: Paradigms and Methods, 354–385. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K. (1994). CHIRON: Planning in an Open-Textured Domain. Ph.D. diss., Technical Report 94-38, Computer Science Dept., Brown University, Providence RI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. and Rissland, E. L. (1992) Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1): 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. C. and Deedman, C. (1987). The Application of Expert Systems Technology to Case-Based Law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 84–93. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossos, G., Zeleznikow, J., Dillon, T., and Vossos, V. (1991). An Example of Integrating Legal Case Based Reasoning with Object Oriented Rule-Based Systems: IKBALS II. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 31–41. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wren, C. and Wren. J. (1986). The Legal Research Manual: A Game Plan for Legal Research and Analysis. Abrams and Ambrose: Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Carole D. Hafner & Donald H. Berman

Authors
  1. Carole D. Hafner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donald H. Berman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hafner, C.D., Berman, D.H. The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 19–64 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019516031847

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019516031847

Keywords

Search

Navigation