Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a model of ration decidendi as a justification structure consisting of a series of reasoning steps, some of which relate abstract predicates to other abstract predicates and some of which relate abstract predicates to specific facts. This model satisfies four adequacy criteria for ratio decidendi identified from the jurisprudential literature. In particular, the model shows how the theory under which a case is decided controls its precedential effect. By contrast, a purely case-based model of ratio fails to account for the dependency of precedential effect on the theory of decision.

REFERENCES

• Ama68: S. Amarel. On representations of problems of reasoning about actions. In D. Michie, editor, Machine Intelligence, volume 3, pages 131-171. Edinburgh University Press, 1968.
• AR88: K.D. Ashley and E. Rissland. Waiting on weighting: A symbolic least commitment approach. In Proceedings of AAAI-88, Minneapolis, August 1988. American Association for ArtificiM Intelligence.
• Ash88: Kevin D. Ashley, Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1988
• BP91: L.K. Branting and B. W. Porter. Rules and precedents as complementary warrants. In Proceedings of Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Anaheim, July 14-19 1991. AAAI Press/MIT Press.
• Bra93: L.K. Branting. A computational model of ratio decidendi. Under review by the International Journal of Law and AI, 1993.
• CR81: J.C. Cueto-Rua. Judicial Methods of Interpretation of the Law. The Publications Institute, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Lousiana State University, 1981.
• Cro79: R. Cross. Precedent in English Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, third edition, 1979.
• Gar85: H. Gardner. The Mind's New Science. Basic Books Inc., New York, 1985.
• Gar87: Anne von der Lieth Gardner, An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987
• Goo30: A. Goodhart. Determining the ratio decidendi of a case. Yale Law Review, 40:161, 1930.
• HT89: K. Holyoak and P. Thagard. Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13(3), 1989.
• McC89: L. T. McCarty, A language for legal Discourse I. basic features, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.180-189, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74037]
• McC91: L. T. McCaxty, 1991. Invited Address, Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 28, Oxford, England.
• MS82: L. T. McCarty and N. S. Sridharan. A computational theory of legal argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University, 1982.
• New82: A. Newell. The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18:87-127, 1982.
• Ris90: E.L. Rissland. Artificial intelligence and law: Stepping stones to a model of legal reasoning. Yale Law Review, 99:1957- 1981, 1990.
• SR92: D. Skalak and E. Rissland. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Law and Artificial intelligence, 1(1), 1992.
• Wal92: R. Walker. An Expert System Architecture for Heterogeneous Domains. PhD thesis, Vrije University, 1992.
• Wam94: E. Wambaugh. The Study of Cases. Second edition, 1894.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  G. Mathematics of Computing
  G.2 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

  J. Computer Applications
  J.1 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING
      Subjects: Law

General Terms:
Legal Aspects, Theory