Synthesizing Related Rules from Statutes and Cases for Legal Expert Systems

Ratio Juris 3 (2):272-318 (1990)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

. Different legal expert systems may be incompatible with each other: A user in characterizing the same situation by answering the questions presented in a consultation can be led to contradictory inferences. Such systems can be “synthesized” to help users avoid such contradictions by alerting them that other relevant systems are available to be consulted as they are responding to questions. An example of potentially incompatible, related legal expert systems is presented here ‐ ones for the New Jersey murder statute and the celebrated Quinlan case, along with one way of synthesizing them to avoid such incompatibility

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Law, liability and expert systems.Dr Joseph A. Cannataci - 1989 - AI and Society 3 (3):169-183.
Legal implications in development and use of expert systems in agriculture.Willard Downs & Kelley Ann Newton - 1989 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (1):53-58.
Rule-based XML.Go Eguchi & Laurence L. Leff - 2002 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (4):283-294.
Is there a burden of questioning?Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
Evaluating expert system prototypes.Pål Sørgaard - 1991 - AI and Society 5 (1):3-17.
Two examples of decision support in the law.István Borgulya - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):303-321.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-02

Downloads
9 (#1,254,017)

6 months
3 (#976,558)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references