David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This paper describes one way in which a precise reason model of precedent could be developed, based on Grant Lamond’s general idea that a later court is constrained to reach a decision that is consistent an earlier court’s assessment of the balance of reasons. The account provided here has the additional advantage of showing how this reason model can be reconciled with the traditional idea that precedential constraint involves rules, as long as these rules are taken to be defeasible
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
John F. Horty & Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (2012). A Factor-Based Definition of Precedential Constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (2):181-214.
Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner (2012). A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
Similar books and articles
Markus E. Schlosser (2012). Taking Something as a Reason for Action. Philosophical Papers 41 (2):267-304.
Kristin Lefebvre (2007). An Ethical Evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision Regarding ERISA Interpretation. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):327-334.
William A. Edmundson (2007). Schauer on Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court. Georgia State University Law Review 24 (2):403-13.
John Horty (2011). Rules and Reasons in the Theory of Precedent. Legal Theory 17 (1):1-33.
Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-Cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent.
Ivo Entchev (2011). A Response-Dependent Theory of Precedent. Law and Philosophy 30 (3):273-290.
John Horty (2004). The Result Model of Precedent. Legal Theory 10 (1):19-31.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads47 ( #87,141 of 1,793,012 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #47,300 of 1,793,012 )
How can I increase my downloads?