Defending the Hierarchical Result Models of Precedential Constraint

TL;DR

This paper defends hierarchical case-based reasoning models of legal precedents against criticisms by clarifying their application and addressing concerns about intermediate factors and outcome accuracy.

Contribution

It demonstrates that van Woerkom's dimension-based hierarchical model can address previous criticisms and improve the validity of precedential constraint modeling.

Findings

Applying the dimension-based model avoids previous criticisms.

The model better accounts for varying strengths of intermediate factors.

Hierarchical models can accurately represent complex legal reasoning.

Abstract

In recent years, hierarchical case-based-reasoning models of precedential constraint have been proposed. In various papers, Trevor Bench-Capon criticised these models on the grounds that they would give incorrect outcomes in some cases. In particular, the models would not account for the possibility that intermediate factors are established with different strengths by different base-level factors. In this paper we respond to these criticisms for van Woerkom's result-based hierarchical models. We argue that in some examples Bench-Capon seems to interpret intermediate factors as dimensions, and that applying van Woerkom's dimension-based version of the hierarchical result model to these examples avoids Bench-Capon's criticisms.