When Precedents Clash
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Consistency of case bases is a way to avoid the problem of retrieving conflicting constraining precedents for new cases to be decided. However, in legal practice the consistency requirements for case bases may not be satisfied. As pointed out in (Broughton 2019), a model of precedential constraint should take into account the hierarchical structure of the specific legal system under consideration and the temporal dimension of cases. This article continues the research initiated in (Liu et al. 2022; Di Florio et al. 2023), which established a connection between Boolean classifiers and legal case-based reasoning. On this basis, we enrich the classifier models with an organisational structure that takes into account both the hierarchy of courts and which courts issue decisions that are binding/constraining on subsequent cases. We focus on common law systems. We also introduce a temporal relation between cases. Within this enriched framework, we can formalise the notions of overruled cases and cases decided per incuriam: such cases are not to be considered binding on later cases. Finally, we show under which condition principles based on the hierarchical structure and on the temporal dimension can provide an unambiguous decision-making process for new cases in the presence of conflicting binding precedents.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 0 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2024.
Builds on
0 of 29 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.
- 2025Rule-based Classifier Modelscited by 0
- 2025A Modal Logic for Temporal and Jurisdictional Classifier Modelscited by 0
- 2025A Modal Logic for Temporal and Jurisdictional Classifier Models15 Oct 2025
- 2025Rule-based Classifier Models1 May 2025