A case study of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. The result is compared with Rissland’s (1989) analysis in terms of dimensions and Ashley’s (2008) analysis in terms of his process model of legal argument with hypotheticals.
منابع مشابه
Hypothesis Formation and Testing in Legal Argument
Formulating hypotheses about natural phenomena and testing them against empirical data have long been cornerstones of the natural sciences. As a cognitive framework, hypothesis formation and testing also play important roles in mathematical discovery and in legal reasoning, especially as illustrated in oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court. A hypothesis is a tentative assumption...
متن کاملInterpretive Reasoning with Hypothetical Cases
Reasoning with hypothetical cases helps decision-makers evaluate alternate hypotheses for deciding a case. The hypotheticals demonstrate the sensitivity of a hypothesis to apparently small factual differences that may require different results because they shift the tradeoffs among conflicting underlying principles. By anticipating variations, the decision-maker seeks to formulate as general an...
متن کاملToward Modeling and Teaching Legal Case-Based Adaptation with Expert Examples
Studying examples of expert case-based adaptation could advance computational modeling but only if the examples can be succinctly represented and reliably interpreted. Supreme Court justices pose hypothetical cases, often adapting precedents, to evaluate if a proposed rule for deciding a problem needs to be adapted. This paper describes a diagrammatic representation of adaptive reasoning with h...
متن کاملThe Value of Information in the Court: Get it Right, Keep it Tight
We estimate an equilibrium model of decision-making in the US Supreme Court which takes into account both private information and ideological differences between justices. We measure the value of information in the court by the probability that a justice votes differently from how she would have voted without case-specific information. Our results suggest a sizable value of information: in 44% ...
متن کاملThe role of NEO big five-factor personality in ethical consistent and licensing behavior in accounting and auditing profession (Case study of Supreme audit court of Iran auditors)
Consistent behavior is a behavior in which doing small unethical acts leads their actors to engage in more egregious behaviors over time that is they consistent with the unethical behaviors. This behavior leading accountants to larger fraudulent financial reports and pushing auditors to ignore more professional ethics. On the other hand, unethical behavior for the first time in some pepole can ...
متن کامل