Logical tools for legal argument

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Logical tools for legal argument: a practical assessment in the domain of tort

Full text

Pdf (863 KB)

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: 243 - 249

Year of Publication: 1997

ISBN:0-89791-924-6

Authors

Bart Verheij	Department of Metajuridica, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 620O MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
Jaap Hage	Department of Metajuridica, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 620O MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
Arno R. Lodder	Department of Metajuridica, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 620O MD Maastricht, The Netherlands

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): 4, Downloads (12 Months): 9, Citation Count: 2

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/10.1145/261618.261659 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	Kevin D. Ashley, Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
	2	Asser-Hartkamp (1994). Mr. C. Asser's handleiding tot de beoej~ning van bet Nederlands burgerlljk recht. Verbintenissenrecht. Deel III. De verbintenis uit de wet. Negende druk bewerkt door Mr. A.$. Harlkamp. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle.
	3	Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Coenen, F.P. (1992). Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Lmv, Vol. 1, pp, 65-86.
	4	Betlem, G. (1993). Civil LiabiliO~ for Trans~ontler Pollution. Graham and Trotman, London.
	5	Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking Rights Seriously. New Impression with a Reply to Critics. Duckwo~, London.
	6	Freeman, K., and Farley, A.M. (1996). A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Lmv, Vol, 4, pp. 163-197.
	7	Thomas F. Gordon, Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1995
	8	Hage, J. (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol. 4, pp. 199-273.
	9	Hage, J. (1997). Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
	10	Jaap C. Hage , Ronald Leenes , Arno R. Lodder, Hard cases: a procedural approach, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.2 n.1, p.113-167, 1993/1994
	11	Hartlief, T., en Maanen, G.E. van (1995). Hoe werkt de onrechtmatige daad? of Het paard van de professor en andere aangrijpende verhalen. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen.
	12	Arno R. Lodder , Aimée Herczog, DiaLaw: a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.146-155, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222225]
	13	Loui, R.P., and Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence and Lmv, Vol. 3, pp. 159-189.
	14	Pollock, J.L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cogn#lve Science, Vol. 11, pp. 481-518.
	15	Prakken, H. (I993). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Doctoral thesis, Free University, Amsterdam.
	16	Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Ltnv, Vol. 4, pp. 331-368.
	17	Schut, G.H.A. (I 990). Onrechtmatige daad volgens B IV en NBtE Vierde druk. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle.
	18	Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and de~at. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht. A summary is available on the World-Wide Web at http://www, metajur, unimaas.nl /...b art/p roefschritV.
	19	Verheij, B., Hage, J.C., and Herik, H.J. van den (1997). An integrated view on rules and principles. To appear in Artificial Intelligence and Law.
	20	Hajime Yoshino, The systematization of legal meta-inference, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.266-275, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222257]

CITED BY 2

	Bart Verheij, Automated argument assistance for lawyers, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.43-52, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway
	Henry Prakken, Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?, Fundamenta Informaticae, v.48 n.2-3, p.253-271, April 2001