David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174 (2010)
This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. As part of the reconstruction, a semi-formal proposal is made for extending the formal AI & Law models with forms of metalevel reasoning in several argument schemes. The result is compared with Rissland’s ( 1989 ) analysis in terms of dimensions and Ashley’s ( 2008 ) analysis in terms of his process model of legal argument with hypotheticals
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kevin D. Ashley (2009). Teaching a Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):321-370.
Trevor Bench-Capon & Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Katie Atkinson (2009). Did He Jump or Was He Pushed? Abductive Practical Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
J. Anthony Blair (2001). Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. [REVIEW] Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki (1997). Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij (2010). A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
Trevor Bench-Capon (1997). Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (4):249-261.
Henry Prakken (2002). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3):113-133.
Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder (1993). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads34 ( #121,442 of 1,911,401 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #79,655 of 1,911,401 )
How can I increase my downloads?