Abstract
This paper takes up Berman and Hafner's (1993) challenge to model legal case-based reasoning not just in terms of factual similarities and differences but also in terms of the values that are at stake. The formal framework of Prakken and Sartor (1998) is applied to examples of case-based reasoning involving values, and a method for formalising such examples is proposed. The method makes it possible to express that a case should be decided in a certain way because that advances certain values. The method also supports the comparison of conflicting precedents in terms of values, and it supports debates on the relevance of distinctions in terms of values.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. PhD Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
Aleven, V. and Ashley, K. (1997). Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based Argumentation Skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 170–179. New York.
Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Bench-Capon, T. (2001). The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 79–94.
Bench-Capon, T. and Sartor, G. (2001). Theory Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12–21. New York.
Berman, D. and Hafner, C. (1987). Indeterminacy: A Challenge to Logic-Based Models of Legal Reasoning. In Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology, Vol. 3, 1–35. Butterworths: London.
Berman, D. and Hafner, C. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 50–59. New York.
Geffner, H. and Pearl, J. (1992). Conditional Entailment: Bridging Two Approaches to Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53: 209–244.
Gordon, T. (1995). The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht/Boston/London.
Hage, J. (1993). Monological Reason-Based Logic: A Low-Level Integration of Rule-Based Reasoning and Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30–39. New York.
Hage, J. (1997). Reasoning With Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic, Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht/Boston/London.
Hage, J. (2001). Formalizing Legal Coherence. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 22–31. New York.
Loui, R. (1998). Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Non-Demonstrative Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14: 1–38.
Loui, R. and Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3: 159–189.
McCarty, L. (1995). An Implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 276–286. New York.
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, Indiana.
Pollock, J. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press: ambridge, MA.
Prakken, H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Argumentation in Law, Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht/Boston/London.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2001). The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Criticial Survey. In Kakas, A. and Sadri, F. (eds.), Computational Logic: From Logic Programming into the Future (In honour of Bob Kowalski). Springer Verlag: Berlin.
Rissland, E. and Ashley, K. (1987). A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 60–66. New York.
Sartor, G. (2001). Teleological Arguments and Theory-Based Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 95–111.
Verheij, B. (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral dissertation University of Maastricht.
Vreeswijk, G. (1995).The Computational Value of Debate in Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 9: 305–341.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prakken, H. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 113–133 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019536206548
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019536206548