Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining

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

Abstract

We discuss several aspects of legal arguments, primarily arguments about the meaning of statutes. First, we discuss how the requirements of argument guide the specification and selection of supporting cases and how an existing case base influences argument formation. Second, we present,our evolving taxonomy of patterns of actual legal argument. This taxonomy builds upon our much earlier work on ‘argument moves” and also on our more recent analysis of how cases are used to support arguments for the interpretation of legal statutes. Third, we show how the theory of argument used by CABARET, a hybrid case-based/rule-based reasoner, can support many of the argument patterns in our taxonomy.

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

  • Alvarado, S.J. 1990. Understanding Editorial Text: A Computer Model of Argument Comprehension. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarado, S.J. 1991. Interrelationships Between Reasoning and Planning in One-Sided Arguments. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series. Argument and Belief. Palo Alto, CA.

  • Ashley, K.D. 1987. Distinguishing — A Reasoner's Wedge. Proceedings, Ninth Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference. Seattle, WA.

  • Ashley, K.D. 1988. Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Case and Hypotheticals. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

  • Ashley, K.D. 1989. Toward a Computational Theory of Arguing with Precedents: Accommodating Multiple Interpretations of Cases. The Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 93–102. Vancouver, BC. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. 1991 . Toward an Intelligent Case-Based Tutorial Program for Teaching Students to Argue with Cases. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief. Palo Alto, CA.

  • Ashley, K.D. & Aleven, V. 1991. A Computational Approach to Explaining Case-Based Concepts of Relevance in a Tutorial Context. Proceedings, Case-Based Reasoning Workshop 1991, 257–268. Washington, DC. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. & Rissland, E.L. 1986. Towards Modelling Legal Argument. In A.A. Martino & F.S. Natali (Eds.), Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, Logic, Informatics, Law (pp. 19–30). Elsevier (North-Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. & Rissland, E.L. 1987. But, See, Accord: Generating Blue Book Citations in HYPO. Proceedings, First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 67–74. Northeastern University, Boston, MA. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. & Rissland, E.L. 1988a. A Case-Based Approach to Modelling legal Expertise. IEEE Expert, 3(3), 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. & Rissland, E.L. 1988. Waiting on Weighting: A Symbolic Least Commitment Approach. Proceedings, Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 239–244. Minneapolis, MN. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • August, S.E. & McNamee, L.P. 1991 . ARIEL: A Model of Analogy Understanding in Arguments. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief. Palo Alto, CA.

  • Bellairs, K. 1989. Contextual Relevance in Analogical Reasoning: A Model of Legal Argument. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. & Hafner, C. 1991. Incorporating Procedural Context into a Model of Case-Based Legal Reasoning. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12–20. Oxford, England. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimbaum, L. 1982. Argument Molecules: A Functional Representation of Argument Structure. AAAI-82, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pittsburgh, PA. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, L. 1985. A Short Note on Opportunistic Planning and Memory in Arguments. Proceedings, Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 281–283. Los Angeles, CA. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimbaum, L., Flowers, M. & McGuire, R. 1980. Towards an AI Model of Argumentation. AAAI-80, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto, CA. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • BlueBook. 1986. A Uniform System of Citation (14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. 1989. Integrating Generalizations with Exemplar-Based Reasoning. The Second DARPA Case-Based Reasoning Workshop. Pensacola Beach, FL. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. 1990. Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification and Explanation: Automating Legal Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX. Available as Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report AI90–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. 1991. Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 34(6), 797–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, J. G. 1983. Learning by Analogy: Formulating and Generalizing Plans from Past Experience. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell & T.M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach (pp. 137–162). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell. J.G. 1986. Derivational Analogy: A Theory of Reconstructive Problem Solving and Expertise Acquisition. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach (pp. 371–392). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P. 1988. Representing Arguments as Background Knowledge for the Justification of Case-Based Inferences. Proceedings, Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, AAAI-88. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.

  • Cohen, P. R. 1987. The Control of Reasoning under Uncertainty. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 2, 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, J.H. 1975. Comment, Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorizational Balancing in First Amendment Analysis. Harvard Law Review, 88, 7(May), 1482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. & Gentner, D. 1989. The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1 (November), 1–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower's, M., McGuire, R. & Birnbaum, L. 1982. Adversary Arguments and the Logic of Personal Attacks. In W. Lehnert & M. Ringle (Eds.), Strategies for Natural Language Processing (pp. 275–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L. L.1958. Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart. Harvard Law Review, 71, 630–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. vdl. 1987. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, H. 1991 . The Death of Jeffrey Stapleton: An Exploration of Legal Reasoning. (In Press).

  • Golding, A. R. & Rosenbloom, P. S. 1991. Improving Rule-Based Systems through Case-Based Reasoning. Proceedings, Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Anaheim, CA. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., Dyer, M. G. & Flowers, M. 1987. Precedent-based Legal Reasoning and Knowledge Acquisition in Contract Law. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Boston, MA. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. 1991. An Abductive Theory of Legal Issues. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. 1958. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review, 71, 593–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin, L. 1968. The Supreme Court, 1967 Term — Forward: On Drawing Lines. Harvard Law Review, 82, 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J. & Thagard, P. 1989. Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13 (July-September, 1989), 295–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D.1982. The Stages of the Decline of the Public/Private Distinction. Draft, Prepared as a comment for a seminar on ‘The Public/Private Distinction’ sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review on January 23, 1982.

  • Kennedy, D. 1989. A Semiotics of Legal Argument. Draft manuscript.

  • Knobbe, K. G. 1986. Hobby and Home Office Deductions — Sections 183 and 280A. Edited by L.L. Silverstein, Tax Management Portfolio, vol. 241–4th. Washington, DC: Tax Management, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and Refutations. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, E. H. 1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. N. 1989. The Case Law System in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C. C. 1989. Representing the Structure of Legal Argument. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Vancouver, BC. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. & Sridharan, N. S.1982. A Computational Theory of Legal Argument (LRP-TR-13). Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University.

  • McGuire, R., Birnbaum, L. & Flowers, M. 1981. Opportunistic Processing in Arguments. Proceedings, Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 58–60, Vancouver, BC. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. 1937. How Lawyers Think (Swallow Paperbooks ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. 1973. How to Solve It (Second Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L. 1990. Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning. Yale Law Journal, 99(8), 1957–1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. 1985b. Argument Moves and Hypotheticals. In C. Walter (Ed.), Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L. & Ashley, K.D. 1986. Hypotheticals as Heuristic Device. Proceedings, Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 289–297. Philadelphia, PA. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B. 1989. Combining Case-Based and Rule-Based Reasoning: A Heuristic Approach. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 524–530. Detroit, MI. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B., 1991. CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6):839–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Valcarce, E. M. & Ashley, K. D. 1984, Explaining and Arguing with Examples. AAAI-84, Proceedings of The National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Austin, TX. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. 1989. Taking Advantage of Models for Legal Classification. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 234–241. Vancouver, BC. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. & Rissland, E. L. 1991. Argument Moves in a Rule-Guided Domain. Proceedings, Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–11. Oxford, England. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storrs, G. 1991. Extensions to Toulmin Form for Capturing Real Arguments. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief. Palo Alto, CA.

  • Stucky, B. K. 1986. Understanding Legal Argument. Counselor Project Technical Report 13. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stucky, B. K. & Gidley, J. M. 1990. Legal Argument with Counterplans. Workshop Notes, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning Workshop, AAAI-90. Boston, MA.

  • Swartout, W. & Balzer, R. 1982. On the Inevitable Intertwining of Specification and Programming. Communications of the ACM, 25(7), July.

  • Sycara, K.P. 1985. Arguments of Persuasion in Labour Mediation. Proceedings, Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 294–296. Los Angeles, CA. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. P. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. P. 1989. Argumentation: Planning Other Agents' Plans. Proceedings, Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 517–523. Detroit, MI. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. P. 1991. Pursuing Persuasive Argumentation. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief. Palo Alto, CA.

  • Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twining, W. & Miers, D. 1982. How To Do Things With Rules (Second Ed.). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, P. H. 1980. Learning and Reasoning by Analogy. Communications of the ACM, 23(12).

  • Winston, P. H. 1982. Learning New Principles from Precedents and Exercises. Artificial Intelligence, 19, 321–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. J. P. & Lytinen, S. L.1991 . Attitude and Coherence Reasoning in Persuasive Discourse, Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief. Palo Alto, CA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, 01003, Amherst, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

    David B. Skalak & Edwina L. Rissland

Authors
  1. David B. Skalak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edwina L. Rissland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, contract IRI-890841, the Air Force Office of Sponsored Research under contract 90-0359, the Office of Naval Research under a University Research Initiative Grant, contract N00014-87-K-0238, and a grant from GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, Mass.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skalak, D.B., Rissland, E.L. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1, 3–44 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118477

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118477

Key words

Search

Navigation