A dialectical model of case based reasoning

This paper analyses legal reasoning with precedents in the setting of a formally defined dialogue game. The basic ideas are to represent cases as argument structures (including pro and con arguments, and the arguments for adjudicating their conflicts) and to define certain case-based reasoning moves as strategies for introducing information into a dispute. In particular analogising and distinguishing are conceived as elementary theory construction moves, which produce new information on the basis of an existing stock of cases. The approach also offers the possibility of using portions of precedents and of expressing criteria for determining the outcome of precedent-based disputes