Toward a computational theory of arguing with precedents

This paper presents a partial theory of arguing with precedents in law and illustrates how that theory supports multiple interpretations of a precedent. The theory provides succinct computational definitions of (1) the most persuasive precedents to cite in the principal argument roles and (2) the most salient aspects of the precedents to emphasize when citing them in those roles. An extended example, drawn from the output of the HYPO program, illustrates the range of different descriptions of the same precedent that are supported by the theory. Each description focuses on different salient aspects of the case depending on the argument context.