ABSTRACT
We discuss several aspects of legal arguments, primarily arguments about the meaning of statutes. First, we discuss how the requirements of argument guide the specification and selection of supporting cases and how an existing case base influences argument formation. Second, we present our evolving taxonomy of patterns of actual legal argument. This taxonomy builds upon our much earlier work on ‘argument moves’ and also on our more recent analysis of how cases are used to support arguments for the interpretation of legal statutes. Third, we show how the theory of argument used by CABARET, a hybrid case-based/rule-based reasoner. can support many of the argument patterns in our taxonomy.
