Burden of proof in legal argumentation

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Burden of proof in legal argumentation

Full text

Pdf (865 KB)

Source

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law archive
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law table of contents

College Park, Maryland, United States

Pages: 156 - 164

Year of Publication: 1995

ISBN:0-89791-758-8

Authors

Arthur M. Farley	Computer and Information Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Kathleen Freeman	Computer and Information Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR

Sponsors

IAAIL : Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law
UMIACS : U of MD Inst for Advanced Comp Studies
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 11, Downloads (12 Months): 55, Citation Count: 9

Additional Information:

references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/222092.222227 What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	K. D. Ashley, Toward a computational theory of arguing with precedents, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.93-102, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74028]
	2	L. K. Branting, Representing and reusing explanations of legal precedents, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.103-110, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74029]
	3	Freeley, A. (1990). Argumentation and debate' Critical thinkine for reasoned decision makine (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
	4	Kathleen Freeman, Toward formalizing dialectical argumentation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 1993
	5	Matthew L. Ginsberg, Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1987
	6	Homer, W. (1988) Rhetoric in the classical tradition. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.
	7	Ronald P. Loui , Jeff Norman , Jon Olson , Andrew Merrill, A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.202-211, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.159002]
	8	C. C. Marshall, Representing the structure of a legal argument, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.121-127, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74031]
	9	Pearl, J. (1987). Embracing causality in formal reasoning. Proceedings of AAA1-87, 369-373.
	10	Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481-518.
	11	John L. Pollock, How to reason defeasibly, Artificial Intelligence, v.57 n.1, p.1-42, Sept. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90103-5]
	12	John L. Pollock, Justification and defeat, Artificial Intelligence, v.67 n.2, p.377-407, June 1994 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)90057-4]
	13	Poole, D.L. (1985), On the comparison of theories' Preferring the most specific explanation, Proceedings IJCAI-85, 144- 147.
	14	Polya, G. (1968). Mathematics and plausible reasoning (2nd ed.) (vol. II). Princeton, NJ' Princeton University Press.
	15	B. W. Porter , R. Bareiss , R. C. Holte, Concept learning and heuristic classification in weak-theory domains, Artificial Intelligence, v.45 n.1-2, p.229-263, Sep. 1990 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(90)90041-W]
	16	Henry Prakken, A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.165-174, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112666]
	17	Henry Prakken, A logical framework for modelling legal argument, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.1-9, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.158977]
	18	Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible Reasoning. Assen/Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
	19	Rissland, E.L. (1985) Argument moves and hypotheticals. In C. Walter (ed.) Comnutin~ Power and Legal Reasoning, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
	20	Giovanni Sartor, A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.192-201, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.159001]
	21	David B. Skalak , Edwin L. Rissland, Argument moves in a rule-guided domain, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.1-11, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112647]
	22	Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

CITED BY 9

	Thomas F. Gordon , Nikos Karacapilidis, The Zeno argumentation framework, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.10-18, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia
	B. Moulin , H. Irandoust , M. Bélanger , G. Desbordes, Explanation and Argumentation Capabilities: Towards the Creation of More Persuasive Agents, Artificial Intelligence Review, v.17 n.3, p.169-222, May 2002
	John L. Yearwood , Andrew Stranieri, The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning, Decision Support Systems, v.41 n.2, p.358-379, January 2006
	Andrew Stranieri , John Zeleznikow , John Yearwood, Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.16 n.4, p.331-348, December 2001
	Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon , Paul E. Dunne, Argumentation in AI and law: editors' introduction, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.13 n.1, p.1-8, January 2005
	Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon, Argumentation and standards of proof, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 04-08, 2007, Stanford, California
	Nikos Karacapilidis , Dimitris Papadias, A computational approach for argumentative discourse in multi‐agent decision making environments, AI Communications, v.11 n.1, p.21-33, January 1998
	Sefora Junqueira , Evandro Costa, Computer Intelligent Support for the ADR/ODR Domain, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, p.69-78, June 15, 2007
	Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon, Zeno Revisited: Representation of Persuasive Argument, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, p.1-10, June 02, 2006