Book contents
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2025
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Logic of PrecedentConstraint, Freedom, and Common Law Reasoning, pp. 248 - 255Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Aleven, Vincent (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation through a Model and Examples. PhD thesis, Intelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Aleven, Vincent and Ashley, Kevin (1997). Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-97), pp. 170–179. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry (1989). Constrained by precedent. Southern California Law Review, 63:1–64.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry and Sherwin, Emily (2001). The Rule of Rules: Morality, Rules, and the Dilemmas of Law. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry and Sherwin, Emily (2008). Demystifying Legal Reasoning. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, Kevin (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1946). Other minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 20:148–187.Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon (1977). Defeasibility and meaning. In Hacker, Peter and Raz, Joseph, editors, Law, Morality, and Society: Essays in Honour of H. L. A Hart, pp. 26–57. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy (2005). Trumping precedent with original meaning: not as radical as it sounds. Constitutional Commentary, 22:257–270.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel (1993). On rigorous definitions. Philosophical Studies, 72:115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor (1991). Practical legal expert systems: the relation between a formalisation of law and expert knowledge. In Bennun, M. and Narayanan, A., editors, Computers, Law, and AI, pp. 191–201. Ablex Publishers.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor (1999). Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99), pp. 36–42. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor (2002). The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor (2017). Hypo’s legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25:205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor and Atkinson, Katie (2017). Dimensions and values for legal CBR. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2017), pp. 27–32. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor and Atkinson, Katie (2018). Lessons from implementing factors with magnitude. In Proceedings of the Thirty First International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2018), pp. 11–20. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor and Rissland, Edwina (2001). Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In The Fourteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX-2001), pp. 41–52. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor and Sartor, Giovanni (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1–2):97–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Donald and Hafner, Carole (1993). Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-93), pp. 50–59. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Bix, Brian (1991). H. L. A Hart and the open texture of language. Law and Philosophy, 10:51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boss, Alan, Butler, Paul, Hubbard, William, et al. (2007). Working group on extrasolar planets. In Reports on Astronomy 2002-2005: Proceedings of the IAU Symposium, pp. 183–186. International Astronomical Union.Google Scholar
Broughton, Gabriel (2019). Vertical precedents in formal models of precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27:253–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, Steven (1985). An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning. Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Burton, Steven (1988). Professor MacCormick’s claim regarding universalization in law. In Faralli, Carla and Pattaro, Enrico, editors, Reason in Law: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Bologna, 12–15 December 1984. A. Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Canavotto, Ilaria (2022). Precedential constraint derived from inconsistent case bases. In Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2022), pp. 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert (1991). Words, the world, and their possibilities. In Pomerantz, James and Lockhead, Gregory, editors, The Perception of Structure, pp. 263–277. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert and Marshall, Catherine (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind, Sag, Ivan, and Webber, Bonnie, editors, Elements of Discourse Understanding, pp. 10–63. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Adam (2009). The Lord Justice hath ruled: Pringles are potato chips. The New York Times, May 31, 2009.Google Scholar
Cross, Rupert and Harris, J. W. (1991). Precedent in English Law. Oxford University Press. Fourth edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, Julie (2016). Interpretation and coherence in legal reasoning. In Zalta, Edward, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition).Google Scholar
Dickson, Julie Stanford University. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/-entries/legal-reas-interpret/.Google Scholar
Dung, Phan Minh (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duxbury, Neil (2005). The Nature and Authority of Precedent. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1967). The model of rules. The University of Chicago Law Review, 35:14–46. Reprinted in Dworkin (1977), pp. 14–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1975). Hard cases. Harvard Law Review, 99:1057–1109. Reprinted in Dworkin (1977), pp. 81–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmundson, William (1993). Rethinking exclusionary reasons: a second edition of Joseph Raz’s ‘Practical Reason and Norms’. Law and Philosophy, 12:329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egré, Paul and O’Madagain, Cathal (2019). Concept utility. The Journal of Philosophy, 116:525–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endicott, Timothy (2022). Law and language. In Zalta, Edward, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition). Stanford University. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/law-language/.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry, Garrett, Merrill, Walker, Edward, and Parkes, Cornelia (1980). Against definitions. Cognition, 8:263–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frege, Gottlob (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, volume 1. Verlag Hermann Pohle. Partially translated in Furth (1964).Google Scholar
Furth, Montgomery, editor (1964). Frege: The Basic Laws of Arithmetic. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gans, Chaim (1986). Mandatory rules and exclusionary reasons. Philosophia, 615:373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, Simon and Anderson, Anthony (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27:181–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodell, Roger (2020). Official Playing Rules of the National Football League. National Football League.Google Scholar
Goodhart, Arthur (1930). Determining the ratio decidendi of a case. Yale Law Journal, 40:161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodhart, Arthur (1959). The ratio decidendi of a case. The Modern Law Review, 22:117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabmair, Matthias and Ashley, Kevin (2011). Faciliting case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-11), pp. 161–170. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review, 71:593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press. Second edition published in 1994; pagination refers to the second edition.Google Scholar
Horty, John (1999). Precedent, deontic logic, and inheritance. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99), pp. 63–72. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Horty, John (2011). Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Legal Theory, 17:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John (2015). Constraint and freedom in the common law. Philosopher’s Imprint, 15(25):1–27.Google Scholar
Horty, John (2016). Reasoning with precedent as constrained natural reasoning. In Lord, Errol and Maguire, Barry, editors, Weighing Reasons, pp. 193–212. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John (2017). Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-2017), pp. 109–118. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Horty, John (2019). Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27:307–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John (2021). Modifying the reason model. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 29:271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John (2022). Grant Lamond’s account of precedent: a personal encounter. In McBride, Mark and Penner, James, editors, New Essays on the Nature of Legal Reasoning, pp. 139–160. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Horty, John (2023). How does precedent constrain? In Endicott, Timothy, Kristjánsson, Haf-steinn Dan, and Lewis, Sebastian, editors, Philosophical Foundations of Precedent, pp. 185–197. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John (2024). Precedent and open texture. In Green, Leslie and Leiter, Brian, editors, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, volume 5. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horty, John and Bench-Capon, Trevor (2012). A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20:181–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, Geert and Poscher, Ralf (2016). Vagueness and Law: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis and Sager, Lawrence (1986). Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal, 96:82–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozel, Randy (2018). Special justifications book review symposium: settled versus right: A theory of Precedent. Constitutional Commentary, 33:471–491.Google Scholar
Lamond, Grant (2006). Precedent and analogy in legal reasoning. In Zalta, Edward, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition). Stanford University. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/legal-reas-prec/.Google Scholar
Lamond, Grant (2022). Revisiting the reasons account of precedent. In McBride, Mark and Penner, James, editors, New Essays on the Nature of Legal Reasoning, pp. 113–138. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Lawson, Gary (1994). The constitutional case against precedent. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 17:23–34.Google Scholar
Leśniewski, Stanislaw (1930). Über definitionen in der sogenannten Theory der Deduktion. Sprawozdania z posiedzen Towarzystwa Naukowego Warzawskiego, 23:289–309.Google Scholar
Levi, Edward (1949). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
List, Christian (2012). The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review. Synthese, 187:179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, Errol and Maguire, Barry (2016). An opinionated guide to the weight of reasons. In Lord, Error and Maguire, Barry, editors, Weighing Reasons, pp. 3–24. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, Peter (2014). Living Words: Meaning Underdetermination and the Dynamic Lexicon. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, David (1999). Open texture and the possibility of legal interpretation. Law and Philosophy, 18:297–309.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil (1987). Why cases have rationes and what these are. In Goldstein, Laurence, editor, Precedent in Law, pp. 155–182. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil (1991). On open texture in law. In Amslek, Paul and MacCormick, Neil, editors, Controversies about Law’s Ontology, pp. 72–83. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. Thorne (1997). Some arguments about legal arguments. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-97), pp. 215–224. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Minker, Jack (1988). On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Automated Deduction, pp. 292–308. Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.Google Scholar
Montrose, J. L. (1956). Distinguishing cases and the limits of ratio decidendi. The Modern Law Review, 19:525–530.Google Scholar
Montrose, J. L. (1957a). Ratio decidendi and the House of Lords. The Modern Law Review, 20: 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrose, J. L. (1957b). The ratio decidendi of a case. The Modern Law Review, 20:587–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Michael (1989). Authority, law, and Razian reasons. Southern California Law Review, 62:827–896.Google Scholar
Mullins, Robert (2020). Protected reasons and precedential constraint. Legal Theory, 26:40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Everett (1954). The verification theory of meaning. Philosophical Review, 63:182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Stephen (1987). Judicial obligation, precedent, and the common law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7:215–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Stephen (1989). Second-order reasons, uncertainty, and legal theory. Southern California Law Review, 62:913–994.Google Scholar
Pollock, John (1970). The structure of epistemic justification. In Studies in the Theory of Knowledge, American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, number 4, pp. 62–78. Basil Blackwell Publisher, Inc.Google Scholar
Pollock, John (1995). Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, Henry (2002). An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, Henry (2021). A formal analysis of some factor- and precedent-based accounts of precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 29:559–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, Henry and Sartor, Giovanni (1998). Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:231–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, Henry and Sartor, Giovanni (2015). Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artificial Intelligence, 227:214–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1972). Legal principles and the limits of law. The Yale Law Journal, 81:823–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1975). Practical Reason and Norms. Hutchinson and Company. Second edition with new Postscript printed in 1990 by Princeton University Press, and reprinted by Oxford University Press in 2002; pagination refers to the Oxford edition.Google Scholar
Reiter, Raymond (1978). On closed world data bases. In Gallaire, Hervre and Minker, Jack, editors, Logic and Data Bases, pp. 119–140. Plenum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Reiter, Raymond (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Henry (1990). Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19:279–310.Google Scholar
Rigoni, Adam (2014). Common-law judicial reasoning and analogy. Legal theory, 20:133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigoni, Adam (2015). An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 23:133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigoni, Adam (2018). Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 26:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissland, Edwina (1990). Artificial intelligence and law: stepping stones to a model of legal reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 99:1957–1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissland, Edwina and Ashley, Kevin (1987). A case-based system for trade secrets law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-87), pp. 60–66. The Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar
Rissland, Edwina and Ashley, Kevin (2002). A note on dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartor, Giovanni (2010). Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18:175–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, Frederick (1989). Is the common law law? California Law Review, 77:455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, Frederick (1991). Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and Life. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick (2008). A critical guide to vehicles in the park. New York University Law Review, 83:1109–1134.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick (2013). On the open texture of law. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 87:197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiappa, Edward (2003). Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Mark (2007). Weighting for a plausible Humean theory of reasons. Nous, 41:110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart and Roberts, Craige (2018). Open texture, and its ramifications for logic and semantics. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart and Roberts, Craige (2019a). Open texture and analyticity. In Makovec, Dejan and Shapiro, Stewart, editors, Friedrich Waismann: The Open Texture of Analytic Philosophy, pp. 189–210. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart and Roberts, Craige (2019b). Open texture and mathematics. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. W. B. (1957). The ratio decidendi of a case. The Modern Law Review, 20:413–415.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. W. B. (1958). The ratio decidendi of a case. The Modern Law Review, 21:155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, A. W. B. (1959). The ratio decidendi of a case. The Modern Law Review, 22:453–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, A. W. B. (1961). The ratio decidendi of a case and the doctrine of binding precedent. In Guest, A. G., editor, Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, pp. 148–175. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taurek, John (1977). Should the numbers count? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6:293–316.Google ScholarPubMed
Tur, Richard (2001). Defeasibilism. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 21:355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twining, William and Miers, David (2010). How to Do Things with Rules. Cambridge University Press. Fifth edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waismann, Frederich (1945). Verifiability. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 19, pp. 119–150. Harrison and Son. Reprinted in Flew, Anthony, editor, Logic and Language, pp. 117–144, Blackwell Publishing Company, 1951; pagination refers to this version.Google Scholar