Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (1):117-145 (2022)

Abstract
This paper aims to contribute to the goal of finding influential legal precedents by quantitative methods. A lot of work has been made in this direction worldwide, especially in the context of common law jurisdictions. However, this type of work is extremely scarce in the Brazilian literature. In addition, our work also contributes to the research of network analysis and the law by applying these methods to unprecedented amount of data and narrowing our inquiry to a single law area, corporate law. Furthermore, whereas most of the literature applying network analysis to judicial decisions had access to readily available data on the citations to precedent within each ruling, our raw data was nothing but the full text of decisions. We focus on data produced by the Superior Court of Justice, the highest court in Brazil for matters of federal law, including statutory interpretation of civil, criminal and corporate law. The Court issued an astonishing 282040 opinions tagged as related to corporate law between 2008 and 2018. This amount of cases is unparalleled internationally for superior courts and for studies in network analysis and law. In our results, we rank precedents quantitatively based on the citations they receive and make. We also qualitatively analyze some of the results, especially related to groups identified in the network with the Modularity algorithm. Our findings also reveal that corporate law jurisprudence in the STJ is quantitatively dominated by a few legal issues around one single theme that is only tangentially related to corporate law. That is, a type of contract used for the expansion of telephone landlines, which also allowed the consumer to become a shareholder of the telecommunication company. This comparison is especially pertinent because the utter lack of data on the quantitative weight of STJ precedents means the national literature has been operating in a void of objective measurements, one which has been filled with cherry-picked rulings and subjective ranking criteria.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10506-021-09290-8
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
External links

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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Vertical Precedents in Formal Models of Precedential Constraint.Gabriel L. Broughton - 2019 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 27 (3):253-307.
Corruption and Campaign Finance Law.John M. Holcomb - 2012 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 23:190-201.
Do Precedents Create Rules?Grant Lamond - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (1):1-26.
A Reduction-Graph Model of Precedent in Legal Analysis.L. Karl Branting - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):59-95.
Justice and Large Corporations.Jeanne Logsdon - 2008 - Business and Society 47 (4):523-548.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-05-26

Total views
5 ( #1,203,305 of 2,506,349 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,420 of 2,506,349 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes