Review of Kevin Ashley, Modelling Legal Argument
Law, Computing and Artificial Intelligence 1 (1) (1992)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesKevin D. Ashley (2002). An AI Model of Case-Based Legal Argument From a Jurisprudential Viewpoint. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3).
Trevor Bench-Capon (1997). Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (4).
Hugh Dalton (1914). Book Review:Gold and Prices. W. J. Ashley; Environment and Efficiency. M. H. Thomson; The Social Policy of Bismarck. Annie Ashley. [REVIEW] Ethics 24 (2):246-.
Nguyen Duy Hung, Phan Minh Thang & Phan Minh Dung (2011). Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines of Performance Relief. Argument and Computation 1 (1):47-69.
Robert Alexy (2000). Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Argumentation 14 (1):65-72.
L. M. M. Royakkers (2000). Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):379-387.
Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
S. Matthew Liao, Julian Savulescu & Mark Sheehan (2007). The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision Making. Hastings Center Report 37 (2):16-20.
S. Matthew Liao, Julian Savulescu & Mark Sheehan (2007). The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making. Hastings Center Report 37 (2):16-20.
Kevin Toh (2008). An Argument Against the Social Fact Thesis (and Some Additional Preliminary Steps Towards a New Conception of Legal Positivism). Law and Philosophy 27 (5):445 - 504.
Bart Verheij (2000). Henry Prakken (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1).
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman (1997). Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2).
Kevin D. Ashley (2009). Teaching a Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):321-370.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2011-11-08Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
