skip to main content
10.1145/74014.74029acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Representing and reusing explanations of legal precedents

Published:01 May 1989Publication History

ABSTRACT

Precedent-based legal reasoning depends on accurate assessment of relevant similarities between new cases and existing precedents. Determining the relevant similarities between a new case and a precedent with respect to a legal category requires knowing the explanation of the precedent's membership in the category. GREBE is a system that uses both general legal rules and specific explanations of precedents to evaluate legal predicates in new cases. GREBE assesses the similarity of a new case to a precedent of a legal category by attempting to find a pattern of relations in the new case that corresponds to the facts of the precedent responsible for its category membership. Missing relations in the new case are inferred by reusing other explanations from past cases.

References

  1. Bar85.Lawrence W. Barsalou. Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Ezperimen~al Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4):629--649, October 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Chr69.George C. Christie. Objectivity in law. Yale Law Journal, 78:1311-1350, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. CM89.Allan Collins and Ryzard Michalski. The logic of plausible reasoning: a core theory. Cognitive Science, 13(1), 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gen83.Dedre Genter. Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Sci. ence, 7(2):155-170, April-June 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. KC85.Smadar Kedar-Cabelli. Purpose-directed analogy. In Proceedings of the 7th A nn~al Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Lar89.Arthur Larsen. The Law of Workmea's Compensation, volume 1. Matthew Bender, New York, t989. ~15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. MM85.George L. Murphy and Douglas L. Medin. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, pages 289-316, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Moo88.Raymond Mooney. A General Explanaiion Based Learning Mechanism and iis Application to Narralive Understanding. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. MS82.L. Thorne McCarty and N.S. Sridharan. A computational theory of legal argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mur82.James L. Murray. The role of analogy in legal reasoning. UC~A Law Review, 29:833- 871,852, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. PBH89.Bruce W. Porter, E. Ray Bareiss, and Robert C. Holte. Knowledge acquisition and heuristic classification in weak-theory domains. Technical Report AI-TR89-96, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, February 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. RA87.Edwina Rissland and Kevin Ashley. Hypo: A case-based reasoning system. Project memo 18, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Raz79.Joseph Raz. The Authority of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. SM81.Edward E. Smith and Douglas L. Medin. Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sto80.Samuel Stoljar. Moral and Legal Reasoning. The MacMillian press, Ltd., 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. vdLG84.Anne van der Lieth Gardner. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Representing and reusing explanations of legal precedents

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                ICAIL '89: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
                May 1989
                258 pages
                ISBN:0897913221
                DOI:10.1145/74014
                • Chairmen:
                • J. C. Smith,
                • R. T. Franson

                Copyright © 1989 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 1 May 1989

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • Article

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate69of169submissions,41%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader