Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
E.L. Rissland, D.B. Skalak (1991)
CABARET: Statutory Interpretation in a Hybrid ArchitectureInternational Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34
K. Nitta (1995)
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Peter Suber (1990)
The paradox of self-amendment : a study of logic, law, omnipotence, and change
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1996)
A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoningArtificial Intelligence and Law, 4
T.J.M. Bench-Capon (1998)
Legal Knowledge-Based Systems.JURIX: The Eleventh Conference
Trevor Bench-Capon (1999)
Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game
K. Freeman, A. Farley (1996)
A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoningArtificial Intelligence and Law, 4
T.F. Gordon (1995)
The Pleadings Game.An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice
D. Walton, E. Krabbe (1995)
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (2004)
Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue GameArtificial Intelligence and Law, 6
F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst (1992)
Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective
T. Gordon (1993)
The Pleadings GameArtificial Intelligence and Law, 2
D. Walton (1998)
The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument
A. Lodder (1998)
DiaLaw : on legal justification and dialog games
E. Feteris (1996)
The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation from a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective
H. Kloosterhuis (1996)
The Normative Reconstruction of Analogy Argumentation in Judical Decisions: a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective
J. Plug (1996)
Complex Argumentation in Judicial Decisions. Analysing Conflicting Arguments
J. Hage, R. Leenes, A. Lodder (1993)
Hard cases: A procedural approachArtificial Intelligence and Law, 2
(1999)
Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation
Trevor Bench-Capon, Marek Sergot (1995)
An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber
E. Rissland, D. Skalak, M. Friedman (1995)
Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX ExperimentsArtificial Intelligence and Law, 5
H. Prakken, G. Vreeswijk (1999)
Handbook of Philosophical Logic
E. Rissland, Kevin Ashley (1987)
A case-based system for trade secrets law
V. Aleven, Kevin Ashley (1995)
Doing things with factors
K. Nitta, Masato Shibasaki, Tsuyoshi Sakata, Takahiro Yamaji, Wang Xianchang, H. Ohsaki, S. Tojo, Iwao Kokubo, T. Suzuki (1995)
New HELIC-II: a software tool for legal reasoning
D. Walton, E. Krabbe (1995)
Commitment In Dialogue
H.J. Plug (1996)
Practical reasoning.International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, FAPR’ 96, Bonn, Germany, June 1996.Proceedings
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1997)
Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game
E. Rissland, D. Skalak (1991)
CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid ArchitectureInt. J. Man Mach. Stud., 34
(1996)
Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Classical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments
R. Loui, Jeff Norman (1995)
Rationales and argument movesArtificial Intelligence and Law, 3
Bart Verheij (2001)
Douglas Walton, The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Book Review)Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9
108 EVELINE FETERIS & HENRY PRAKKEN Historically, perhaps the first AI & Law attempt to address legal reasoning in an adversarial setting was McCarty’s (still ongoing) Taxman project, which aims to formally reconstruct the lines of reasoning in the majority and dissenting opinions of a few leading American tax law cases (see e.g. McCarty, 1995). Perhaps the first system that explicitly defined notions like dispute and dialectical role was Rissland & Ashley’s (1987) HYPO system, which modelled adversarial reasoning with legal precedents. Its output consisted of disputes between the plaintiff and defendant in a legal case, where each dispute is an alternating series of attacks by the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim, and of defences or counterattacks by the plaintiff against these attacks. This work was continued in the CABARET (Rissland & Skalak, 1991) CATO (Aleven & Ashley, 1995) and BANK XXX (Rissland et al., 1997) projects. The main focus of this research strand is defining reasonable or useful dialectical argument moves, corresponding to the moves made by human expert lawyers. Recently, logic-based AI & Law research on defeasible legal reasoning has also resulted in dialectical models of legal argument. Unlike the above-described devel- opments, this ‘logical’ strand focuses
Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 3, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.