Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors

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

Abstract

Modelling reasoning with legal cases has been a central concern of AI and Law since the 1980s. The approach which represents cases as factors and dimensions has been a central part of that work. In this paper I consider how several varieties of the approach can be applied to the interesting case of Popov v Hayashi. After briefly reviewing some of the key landmarks of the approach, the case is represented in terms of factors and dimensions, and further explored using theory construction and argumentation schemes approaches.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Popov v Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731. (Cal.Superior Dec 18, 2002) (NO. 400545). The decision was given by the Honourable Kevin M McCarthy and is reprinted in the introduction to this volume.

  2. This was the view of Rissland and Ashley (2002), where they explicitly say that F2 should be treated as the two extreme points on a dimension, rather than as two separate factors.

  3. A suggestion supported by the fact that these were both cited in the decision on Popov.

  4. This case, and another similar leading whaling case were both cited in the decision.

  5. Although it has been suggested in Berger (2006) that Pierson did in fact wish to interfere because of friction between the different social groups to which the landowning Post and the small holder Pierson belonged. Berger also suggests that the incident took place very close to Pierson’s property and the land was less open than is usually thought.

  6. The following may fruitfully be compared with the argumentation scheme approach of Sect. 5. The plaintiff argument is Fig. 1 and the defendant argument Fig. 2.

  7. Or Young: it makes no difference in this representation since the factors actually used in T1 are the same in either case.

  8. Compare the three distinctions in the HYPO style treatment at the end of Sect. 3.2.

References

  • Aleven V (1997) Teaching case based argumentation through an example and models. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

  • Ashley KD (1990) Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In: ICAIL, ACM, pp 35–44. ISBN 1-59593-081-7

  • Bench-Capon TJM (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Rissland EL (2001) Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In: Verheij B, Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Proceedings of JURIX 2001, IOS Press, Amsterdman, pp 41–52

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Berger BR (2006) It’s not about the fox: the untold history of pierson v post. Duke Law Rev 55:1089–1135

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In Proceedings of the 4th ICAIL, ACM Press, pp 50–59

  • Berman DH, Hafner CD (1995) Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. In: ICAIL, pp 42–51

  • Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2005) Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In: Proceedings of the 10th ICAIL, pp 65–74

  • Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artif Intell Law 13(3–4):323–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Egly U, Gaggl SA, Woltran S (2008) Aspartix: implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In: de la Banda MG, Pontelli E (eds), ICLP, volume 5366 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp 734–738. ISBN 978-3-540-89981-5

  • Finkelman P (2002) Fugitive baseballs and abandoned property: who owns the home run ball?. Cardozo Law Review 23:1609–1633

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) Pierson vs. post revisited—a reconstruction using the carneades argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds), COMMA, vol 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, pp 208–219. ISBN 978-1-58603-652-2

  • Helmholz R (1983) Equitable division and the law of finders. Fordham Law Rev 52(3):313–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson J, Bench-Capon TJM (2001) Dynamic arguments in a case law domain. In: Proceedings of the 8th ICAIL, pp 60–69

  • Johnston B, Governatori G (2003) Induction of defeasible logic theories in the legal domain. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ICAIL, pp 204–213

  • Levi EH (1948) An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Il

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) (2007) Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2007: the twentieth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems, Leiden, The Netherlands, 12–15 December 2007, volume 165 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press. ISBN 978-1-58603-810-6

  • Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):113–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland EL (1983) Examples in legal reasoning: legal hypotheticals. In IJCAI, pp 90–93

  • Rissland EL, Ashley KD (2002) A note on dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland EL, Friedman MT (1995) Detecting change in legal concepts. In Proceedings of the 5th ICAIL, pp 127–136

  • Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder and Mommers, pp 139–149. ISBN 978-1-58603-810-6

  • Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of popov v. hayashi. In: Lodder and Mommers, pp 151–160. ISBN 978-1-58603-810-6

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the many people with whom I have discussed reasoning with cases in law over the many years, including Edwina Rissland, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor, John Henderson, Alison Chorley, Katie Atkinson, Tom Gordon and Adam Wyner. Part of this work was supported by the Estrella (The European project for Standardized Transparent Representations in order to Extend Legal Accessibility (Estrella, IST-2004-027655)). This is especially true of the work in Sect. 5, for which particular thanks to Adam Wyner, and Ken Chan, who wrote the GUI.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

    T. J. M. Bench-Capon

Authors
  1. T. J. M. Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. J. M. Bench-Capon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bench-Capon, T.J.M. Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 20, 15–35 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9118-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9118-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation