Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation pp 47–75Cite as

Legal Reasoning and Argumentation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Wigmore thought that there was a science of proof underlying legal reasoning that could be displayed in any given case as a graphic sequence of argumentation from the evidence in the case leading to the ultimate probandum. Argumentation technology has now vindicated this approach by providing useful qualitative methods that can be applied to identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the pro and con arguments put forward by both sides in a trial. In this chapter, it is shown how to apply argumentation schemes, such as argument from witness testimony, using argument diagrams applied to typical sequences of evidence-based legal reasoning in which there is a successive refinement of arguments displayed as the evidence comes into a case. It is shown how argument from applying rules to cases, teleological (goal-directed reasoning), argument from expert witness testimony, and abductive reasoning (represented as inference to the best explanation) are centrally important for this purpose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ashley, K. 1988. Arguing by analogy in law: A case-based model. In Analogical reasoning, ed. D.H. Helman, 205–224. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. 2006. Case-based reasoning. In Information technology and lawyers, ed. A.R. Lodder and A. Oskamp, 23–60. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. 2009. Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological and hypothetical reasoning. In Proceeding of ICAIL 2009: 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 1–10. New York, N.Y.: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K., and E. Rissland. 2003. Law, learning and representation. Artificial Intelligence 150: 17–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, K., and T. Bench-Capon. 2007. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171: 855–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, K., T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. 2005. Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ed. G. Sartor, 35–44. New York, N.Y.: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, K., T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. 2006. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152: 157–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. 2009. Dimension based representation of Popov v Hayashi. In Modelling legal cases, ed. K. Atkinson, 41–52. Barcelona: Huygens Editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. 2012. Representing Popov vs. Hayashi with Dimensions and Factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20: 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bex, F. 2009. Analysing stories using schemes. In Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic, ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken and B. Verheij, 93–116. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, S. 1996. Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 923–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copi, I.M., and C. Cohen. 1998. Introduction to logic, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F. 2010. The Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. C. Reed, and C.W. Tindale. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards. In Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G. Simari, 239–260. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B.E. 2002. Reported and recommendations on the law of capture and first possession: Popov v. Hayashi. In Superior of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco. Case no. 400545, November 6, 2002. http://web.mac.com/graybe/Site/Writings_files/Hayashi%20Brief.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2009.

  • Guarini, M., A. Butchart, P. Simard Smith, and A. Moldovan. 2009. Resources for research on analogy: A multi-disciplinary guide. Informal Logic 29: 84–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. 1949, 1951. The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 49: 171–194. Reprinted in Logic and language, ed. A. Flew. 145–166. Oxford: Blackwell, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. 1994. Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, E.H. 1949. An introduction to legal reasoning. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, A.R. 1999. Dialaw: On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy & Rhetoric 42: 154–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K.M. 2002. Statement of decision. Case of Popov v. Hayashi #4005545. Superior Court of California. www.findlaw. Accessed 12 Dec 2002.

  • Nute, D. 1994. Defeasible logic. In Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, vol. 3. Nonmonotonic reasoning and uncertain reasoning, ed. D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, and J.A. Robinson, 353–395. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, M.S., and R.J. Allen. 2008. Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy 27: 223–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1993. The story model for juror decision making. In Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making, ed. R. Hastie, 192–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 2005. AI & law, logic and argument schemes. Argumentation 19: 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 2006. Models of persuasion dialogue. http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/argbookhp.pdf. (Originally published as Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188, 2006.).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 2006. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 2009. A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In Legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic, ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, 223–253. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C., and D. Walton. 2003. Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, et al., 195–211. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 2005. Legal reasoning: A cognitive approach to the law. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F. 1987. Precedent. Stanford Law Review 39: 571–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F. 2009. Thinking like a lawyer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillers, P. 1989. Webs of things in the mind: A new science of evidence. Michigan Law Review 87: 1225–1258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillers, P., and J. Gottfried. 2006. Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): A collateral attack on the legal maxim that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is unquantifiable? Law, Probability and Risk 5: 135–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twining, W., and D. Miers. 2010. How to do things with rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B. 2001. Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes. In The 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law: Proceedings of the conference, 225−236. New York Association for Computing Machinery. http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm.

  • Walton, D. 1990a. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 87: 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1990b. Practical reasoning. Savage, Md.: Roman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion. University Park, Penn.: Penn State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2002. Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic 22: 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2008. Witness testimony evidence: Argumentation, artificial intelligence and law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18: 217–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany, Texas: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., and T.F. Gordon. 2005. Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In IAAIL workshop series, international workshop on argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, ed. P.E. Dunne, and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 103–111. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weinreb, L.L. 2005. Legal reason: The use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J.H. 1931. The principles of judicial proof, 2nd ed. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J.H. 1940. Evidence in trials at common law. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, M., and W. van der Hoek. 2005. On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. Journal of Applied Logic 3: 396–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyner, A., and T. Bench-Capon. 2007. Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), ed. A. Lodder, and L. Mommers, 139–149. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Wyner, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, and K. Atkinson. 2007. Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), eds. A. Lodder and L. Mommers, 151−160. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Windsor, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR), Windsor, ON, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche and CIRSFID, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Giorgio Bongiovanni

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    Gerald Postema

  3. CIRSFID, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Antonino Rotolo

  4. Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

  5. Department of Law, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

    Chiara Valentini

  6. University of Windsor, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR), Windsor, Ontario, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature B.V.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Walton, D. (2018). Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. In: Bongiovanni, G., Postema, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Valentini, C., Walton, D. (eds) Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9452-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation