Abstract
In this chapter we focus on arguing by analogy in law, the way in which attorneys argue in favor of deciding a problem situation by analogizing it to precedent cases. We describe a 3-ply, turn-taking structure of analogical legal arguments in which analogous precedents are cited in points and responded to by distinguishing and citing counter-examples. After working through a brief example, we examine the traditional theoretical account of legal analogical reasoning and two criticisms of the traditional account, that it does not explain: (1) what similarities and differences are important, or (2) how competing analogies are resolved. We present a more complete account of arguing by analogy in law and show how the model is implemented in HYPO, a computer program that makes case-based, analogical arguments in the domain of trade secret law. We describe how HYPO uses “dimensions” and “claimlattice” mechanisms to perform indexing and dynamic relevancy assessment of precedent cases, compares and contrasts cases to come up with the best precedents pro and con a decision and makes a skeletal argument with points and responses that pose and distinguish analogous precedents. We show how the HYPO approach addresses the criticisms of the traditional model and compare it to the approaches of other AI research on analogical reasoning.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashley, Kevin D. (1987), Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts.
Ashley, Kevin D. and Rissland, Edwina L. (1987), ‘Compare and contrast, a test of expertise’, in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Ashley, Kevin D. and Rissland, Edwina L. (1988), ‘Dynamic assessment of relevancy in a case-based reasoner’, in Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications, San Diego: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
Burstein, M. H. (1983), ‘A model of learning by incremental analogical reasoning and debugging’, in Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Burton, Steven J. (1985), An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning, Boston: Little, Brown.
Carbonell, J. G. (1982), ‘Experiential learning in analogical problem solving’, in Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, PA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Carbonell, J. G. (1983), ‘Derivational analogy and its role in problem solving’, in Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Carbonell, J. G. (1983), ‘Learning by analogy: Formulating and generalizing plans from past experience’, in Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, and T. Mitchell (eds.), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, CA: Tioga Publishing.
Dworkin, Ronald (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Dworkin, Ronald (1985), A Matter of Principle, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Gentner, D. (1983), ‘Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy’, Cognitive Science 7:155–170.
Hammond, Kristian J. (1986), ‘CHEF: A model of case-based planning’, in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, PA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Hammond, Kristian J. (1986), ‘Learning to anticipate and avoid planning problems through the explanation of failures’, in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, PA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Holyoak, Keith J. and Thagard, Paul (1987), ‘Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction: A computational theory’, Manuscript.
Levi, Edward H. (1949), An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.
Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Rissland, Edwina L. and Ashley, Kevin D. (1986), ‘Hypothetical as heuristic device’, in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, PA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Rissland, Edwina L. and Ashley, Kevin D. (1987), ‘A case-based system for trade secrets law’, in First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Boston MA: Northeastern University.
Stick, John (1986), ‘Can nihilism be pragmatic?’, Harvard Law Review 100(2): 332–401.
Wellman, Vincent A. (1985), ‘Practical reasoning and judicial justification: Toward an adequate theory’, University of Colorado Law Review 57:45–115.
Winston, Patrick H. (1980), ‘Learning and reasoning by analogy’, Communications of the ACM 23(12): 689–703.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ashley, K.D. (1988). Arguing by Analogy in Law: A Case-Based Model. In: Helman, D.H. (eds) Analogical Reasoning. Synthese Library, vol 197. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7811-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7811-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8450-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7811-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive