Rule-based Classifier Models

We extend the formal framework of classifier models used in the legal domain. While the existing classifier framework characterises cases solely through the facts involved, legal reasoning fundamentally relies on both facts and rules, particularly the ratio decidendi. This paper presents an initial approach to incorporating sets of rules within a classifier. Our work is built on the work of Canavotto et al. (2023), which has developed the rule-based reason model of precedential constraint within a hierarchy of factors. We demonstrate how decisions for new cases can be inferred using this enriched rule-based classifier framework. Additionally, we provide an example of how the time element and the hierarchy of courts can be used in the new classifier framework.

When Precedents Clash

Consistency of case bases is a way to avoid the problem of retrieving conflicting constraining precedents for new cases to be decided. However, in legal practice the consistency requirements for case bases may not be satisfied. As pointed out in (Broughton 2019), a model of precedential constraint should take into account the hierarchical structure of the specific legal system under consideration and the temporal dimension of cases. This article continues the research initiated in (Liu et al. 2022; Di Florio et al. 2023), which established a connection between Boolean classifiers and legal case-based reasoning. On this basis, we enrich the classifier models with an organisational structure that takes into account both the hierarchy of courts and which courts issue decisions that are binding/constraining on subsequent cases. We focus on common law systems. We also introduce a temporal relation between cases. Within this enriched framework, we can formalise the notions of overruled cases and cases decided per incuriam: such cases are not to be considered binding on later cases. Finally, we show under which condition principles based on the hierarchical structure and on the temporal dimension can provide an unambiguous decision-making process for new cases in the presence of conflicting binding precedents.

Stable Normative Explanations: From Argumentation to Deontic Logic

This paper examines how a notion of stable explanation developed elsewhere in Defeasible Logic can be expressed in the context of formal argumentation. With this done, we discuss the deontic meaning of this reconstruction and show how to build from argumentation neighborhood structures for deontic logic where this notion of explanation can be characterised. Some direct complexity results are offered.