Case Law

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 517353 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Christopher S. Kulander - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Dana Rubin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Gareth Ryan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Stefano Montanelli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • crime knowledge extraction an ontology driven approach for detecting abstract terms in Case Law decisions
    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2019
    Co-Authors: Silvana Castano, Alfio Ferrara, Mattia Falduti, Stefano Montanelli
    Abstract:

    In this paper, we present CRIKE, a data-science approach to automatically detect concrete applications of legal abstract terms in Case-Law decisions. To this purpose, CRIKE relies on the use of the LATO ontology where legal abstract terms are properly formalized as concepts and relations among concepts. Using LATO, CRIKE aims at discovering how and where legal abstract terms are applied by judges in their legal argumentation. Moreover, we detect the terminology used in the text of Case-Law decisions to characterize concrete abstract-term instances. A Case-study on a Case-Law decisions dataset provided by the Court of Milan, Italy, is also discussed.

  • ICAIL - Crime Knowledge Extraction: an Ontology-driven Approach for Detecting Abstract Terms in Case Law Decisions
    Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law - ICAIL '19, 2019
    Co-Authors: Silvana Castano, Alfio Ferrara, Mattia Falduti, Stefano Montanelli
    Abstract:

    In this paper, we present CRIKE, a data-science approach to automatically detect concrete applications of legal abstract terms in Case-Law decisions. To this purpose, CRIKE relies on the use of the LATO ontology where legal abstract terms are properly formalized as concepts and relations among concepts. Using LATO, CRIKE aims at discovering how and where legal abstract terms are applied by judges in their legal argumentation. Moreover, we detect the terminology used in the text of Case-Law decisions to characterize concrete abstract-term instances. A Case-study on a Case-Law decisions dataset provided by the Court of Milan, Italy, is also discussed.

Alessandro Riboni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Statute Law or Case Law
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2008
    Co-Authors: Luca Anderlini, Leonardo Felli, Alessandro Riboni
    Abstract:

    In a Case Law regime Courts have more flexibility than in a Statute Law regime. Since Statutes are inevitably incomplete, this confers an advantage to the Statute Law regime over the Case Law one. However, all Courts rule ex-post, after most economic decisions are already taken. Therefore, the advantage of flexibility for Case Law is unavoidably paired with the potential for time-inconsistency. Under Case Law, Courts may be tempted to behave myopically and neglect ex-ante welfare because, ex-post, this may afford extra gains from trade for the parties currently in Court. The temptation to behave myopically is traded off against the effect of a Court's ruling, as a precedent, on the rulings of future Courts. When Case Law matures this temptation prevails and Case Law Courts succumb to the time-inconsistency problem. Statute Law, on the other hand pairs the lack of flexibility with the ability to commit in advance to a given (forward looking) rule. This solves the time-inconsistency problem afflicting the Case Law Courts. We conclude that when the nature of the legal environment is sufficiently heterogeneous and/or changes sufficiently often, the Case Law regime is superior: flexibility is the prevailing concern. By the same token, when the legal environment is sufficiently homogeneous and/or does not change very often, the Statute Law regime dominates: the ability to overcome the time-inconsistency problem is the dominant consideration.

  • Statute Law or Case Law
    LSE Research Online Documents on Economics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Luca Anderlini, Leonardo Felli, Alessandro Riboni
    Abstract:

    We embed a simple contracting model with ex-ante investments in which there is scope for Court intervention in a full-blown open-ended dynamic setting. The underlying preferences of both Courts and contracting parties are fully forward looking and unbiased. Our point of departure is instead the observation that when Courts intervene in a contractual relationship they obviously do so at the ex-post stage. This introduces a natural tension between actual Court behavior and ex-ante optimal Court decisions. In a Case Law regime each Court is tempted to behave myopically because, ex-post, this affords current extra gains from trade. This temptation is traded off against the effect of its ruling, as a precedent, on future ones. We model the Statute Law regime in an extreme way: no discretion is left to the Courts which behave according to fixed rules. This solves the time-inconsistency problem afflicting the Case Law Courts, but is costly because of its lack of flexibility. We find that when the nature of the environment changes sufficiently often through time the Case Law regime is superior, while when the environment does not change very often the Statute Law regime dominates. Overall, our findings support the view that the Case Law regime is superior in fields in which innovation, and hence change, is central (e.g. finance), while the Codified Law regime is superior in more slow-changing ones (e.g. inheritance Law).

Case Law - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts