Some arguments about legal arguments

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Some arguments about legal arguments

Full text

Pdf (1.52 MB)

Source

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law archive
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law table of contents

Melbourne, Australia

Pages: 215 - 224

Year of Publication: 1997

ISBN:0-89791-924-6

Author

L. Thorne McCarty

Rutgers university, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Sponsors

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

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 3, Downloads (12 Months): 22, Citation Count: 6

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/10.1145/261618.261656 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.

	Ashley and McLaren, 1995	Kevin D. Ashley , Bruce M. McLaren, Reasoning with Reasons in Case-Based Comparisons, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, p.133-144, October 23-26, 1995
	Ashley, 1990	Kevin D. Ashley, Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
	Berwick, 1985	Robert C. Berwick, The acquisition of syntactic knowledge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1985
	Branting, 1994	L.K. Branting. A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:1-31, 1994.
	Delgrande, 1988	James R. Delgrande, An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: revised report, Artificial Intelligence, v.36 n.1, p.63-90, August 1988 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(88)90079-3]
	Dung, 1993	Phan Minh Dung, An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation, Proceedings of the tenth international conference on logic programming on Logic programming, p.616-630, August 1993, Budapest, Hungary
	Dung, 1995	Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
	Dworkin, 1967	R. Dworkin. The model of rules. University of Chicago Law Review, 35:14-46, 1967.
	Dworkin, 1975	R. Dworkin. Hard cases. Harvard Law Review, 88:1057-1109, 1975.
	Dworkin, 1986	R. Dworkin. Law's Empire. Harvard University Press, 1986.
	Gardner, 1987	Anne von der Lieth Gardner, An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987
	Geffner and Pearl, 1992	Hector Geffner , Judea Pearl, Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.53 n.2-3, p.209-244, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90071-5]
	Gelfond and Lifschitz, 1988	M. Gelfond and V. Lif~ chitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings, Fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 1070- 1080, 1988.
	Ginsberg, 1987	Matthew L. Ginsberg, Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1987
	Gordon, 1991	T. F. Gordon, An abductive theory of legal issues, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.35 n.1, p.95-118, July 1991 [doi>10.1016/S0020-7373(07)80009-5]
	Gordon, 1994	Thomas F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.2 n.4, p.239-292, 1993/1994 [doi>10.1007/BF00871972]
	Gordon, 1995	T.F Gordon. The Pleadings Game. Kluwer, 1995.
	Hall, 1935	P. Hall. On representatives of subsets. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 10:26- 30, 1935.
	Hart, 1961	H.L.A. Hart. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
	Horty et. al., 1990	John F. Horty , Richmond H. Thomason , David S. Touretzky, A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks, Artificial Intelligence, v.42 n.2-3, p.311-348, March 1990 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(90)90057-7]
	Jager, 1985	M. Jager. Trade Secrets Law. 1985.
	Kort, 1963	F. Kort. Content analysis of judicial opinions and rules of law. In G. Schubert, editor, Judicial Decision Making, pages 133-197. 1963.
	Kowalski and Toni, 1996	R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:275-296, 1996.
	Lawlor, 1963	R.C. Lawlor. Foundations of logical legal decision making. Modern Uses of Logic in Law, pages 98-114, 1963.
	Lloyd, 1987	J. W. Lloyd, Foundations of logic programming; (2nd extended ed.), Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, 1987
	Loui, 1987	I~P. Loui. Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference. Computational Intek ligence, 3:100-106, 1987.
	Loui, 1995	R.P. Loui. Book review: Foucault, Derrida, Women's speaking justified, and Modelling legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:143-150, 1995.
	Marcus, 1980	Mitchell P. Marcus, Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980
	Marek et. al., 1990	W. Maxek, A. Nerode, and J.B. Remmel. Nonmonotonic rule systems, i. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial intelligence, 1:241-273, 1990.
	McCarty and Sridharan, 1980	L.T. McCar~ and N.S. Sridharan. The representation of an evolving system of legal concepts: I. Logical templates. In Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pages 304-311, Victoria, British Columbia, 1980.
	McCarty and Sridharan, 1981	L.T. McCarty and N.S. Sridharan. The representation of an evolving system of legal concepts: I/. Proto~es and deformations. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 246-53, 1981.
	McCarty and Sridharan, 1982	L.T. McCartT and N.S. Sridharan. A computational theory of legal argument. Technical Report LRPoTR-13, Computer Science Department, Rutgers University, 1982.
	McCarty, 1980	L.T. McCar~. The TAXMAN project: Towards a cognitive theory of legal argument. In B. Niblet% editor, Computer Science and Law: An Advanced Course, pages 23-43. Cambridge UniversitT Press, 1980.
	McCarty, 1989	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]
	McCarty, 1991	L. Thorne McCarty, On the role of prototypes in appellate legal argument (abstract), Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.185-190, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112668]
	McCarty, 1995	L. Thorne McCarty, An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.276-286, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222258]
	McLaren and Ashley, 1995	Bruce M. McLaren , Kevin D. Ashley, Context sensitive case comparisons in practical ethics: reasoning about reasons, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.316-325, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222266]
	Moore, 1985	Robert C. Moore, Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic, Artificial Intelligence, v.25 n.1, p.75-94, Jan. 1985 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(85)90042-6]
	Muggleton, 1992	S. Muggleton. Inductive Logic Pro- 9ramming. Academic Press, 1992.
	Nute, 1994	D.N. Nute. A decidable quantified defeasible logic. In D. Prawitz, B. Skyrms, and D. Westerstahl, editors, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, volume IX, pages 263-284. 1994.
	Peczenik, 1996	A. Peczenik. Jumps and logic in the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:297-329, 1996.
	Pollock, 1987	3i. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning, Cognitive Science, 11:481-518, 1987.
	Poole, 1985	D. Poole. On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 144-147. Morgan Ka-fmann, 1985.
	Poole, 1988	David Poole, A logical framework for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.36 n.1, p.27-47, August 1988 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(88)90077-X]
	Prakken and Sartor, 1995	Henry Prakken , Giovanni Sartor, On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.1-10, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222096]
	Prakken and Sartor, 1996a	H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331-368, 1996.
	Prakken and Sartor, 1996b	H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Editor's introduction: Logical models of legal argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:157- 161, 1996.
	Prakken, 1991	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]
	Prakken, 1993	H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Model. in9 Legal Argument. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Am~erdam, 1993.
	Quinlan, 1993	J. Ross Quinlan, C4.5: programs for machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1993
	Reiter, 1980	R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81-132, 1980.
	Reiter, 1987	1~ Reiter. Nonmonotonic reasoning. In Annual Reviews of Computer Science, volume 2, pages 147-187. 1987.
	Rissland and Skalak, 1991	Edwina L. Rissland , David B. Skalak, CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.34 n.6, p.839-887, June 1991 [doi>10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W]
	Sartor, 1991	Giovanni Sartor, The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.155-164, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112665]
	Sartor, 1994	G. Sartor. A formalmodel of.legal argu- mentation. Ratio Juris, 7:177-211, 1994.
	Schubert, 1975	G. Schubert. Human Jurisprudence: Public Law as Political Science. University Press of Hawaii, 1975.
	Simari and Loui, 1992	Guillermo R. Simari , Ronald P. Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial Intelligence, v.53 n.2-3, p.125-157, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90069-A]
	Skalak and Rissland, 1992	D.B. Skalak and E.L. Pdssland. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1:3-44, 1992.
	Smith and Medin, 1981	E. Smith and D.L. Medin, editors. Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, 1981.
	Touretzky et. al., 1987	D.S. Touretzky, J.F. Horn, and R.H. Thomason. A clash of intuitions: The current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Join~ Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 476--482, 1987.
	Van Gelder et. al., 1991	Allen Van Gelder , Kenneth A. Ross , John S. Schlipf, The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.38 n.3, p.619-649, July 1991 [doi>10.1145/116825.116838]

CITED BY 6

	J. C. Hage, Formalizing legal coherence, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.22-31, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
	Carlos Iván Chesñevar , Ana Gabriela Maguitman , Ronald Prescott Loui, Logical models of argument, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.32 n.4, p.337-383, Dec. 2000
	H. Jakobovits , D. Vermeir, Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.53-62, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway
	Michael Halper , Li-min Liu , James Geller , Yehoshua Perl, Ownership as a conceptual modeling construct, Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.62 n.2, p.248-273, August, 2007
	Wenji Mao , Jonathan Gratch, Social Judgment in Multiagent Interactions, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.210-217, July 19-23, 2004, New York, New York
	Raquel Mochales , Aagje Ieven, Creating an argumentation corpus: do theories apply to real arguments?: a case study on the legal argumentation of the ECHR, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 08-12, 2009, Barcelona, Spain