The paper introduces an expert‑annotated dataset of 42 U.S. federal tax opinions on corporate reorganizations under I.R.C. §368, marking the first tree‑structured argument corpus in this domain. Each legal passage is labeled with one of five functional categories—Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Background Facts, and Procedural History—and can be linked into directed support trees. Experiments demonstrate that functional labels are learnable and that supervised fine‑tuning improves within‑case retrieval, though cross‑case generalization remains weak.
Legal argument mining supports passage classification, retrieval, and argument completion. This work introduces an expert-annotated dataset of 42 U.S. federal tax opinions on corporate reorganizations...
The paper introduces an automated pipeline that converts court decisions into legal commentaries for specific German Civil Code sections, using paragraph extraction, summarization, keyword clustering, and large language models to generate headings and citation-rich sections. The system processes 4,555 decisions from the German Federal Court of Justice, evaluates the output on relevance, heading match, citation faithfulness, cluster distinction, and logical ordering, and demonstrates that rapid, low-cost commentary generation is feasible while noting limitations due to source restrictions and legal reasoning norms.
arXiv:2607. 09094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal precedent retrieval is a fundamental task in legal case preparation, planning, litigation strategy, and legal research.
arXiv:2607. 03325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism.
arXiv:2606. 06679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Court judgments are central to legal practice and jurisprudence, yet discourse analysis of Hong Kong judgments has received limited attention, owing largely to the absence of expert-annotated corpora.
arXiv:2608. 08830v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research.
arXiv:2603. 05171v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This Guideline presents a systematic and operationalizable annotation framework for representing legal argumentation structures in judicial decisions.
LexIssue introduces a benchmark for identifying disputed legal issues in Chinese civil litigation, comprising 430 real‑world cases and 1,303 expert‑annotated issues. The dataset is built around a hierarchical schema that links free‑form issue descriptions to structured legal categories, enabling two complementary tasks: issue generation and issue classification. A retrieval‑augmented knowledge base covering 27 causes of action and 441 issue entries is provided, and experiments show that incorporating this knowledge consistently improves model performance on the tasks.
LEGO is a dual‑module framework that combines a Legal Expert GraphRAG system with an expert Chain‑of‑Thought approach to enhance complex legal reasoning. The GraphRAG component uses an expert‑annotated civil code graph and a greedy normative‑coverage retrieval algorithm to extract relevant provision subgraphs, while the Chain‑of‑Thought module structures retrieved provisions and case facts into a Provision‑Fact‑Conclusion reasoning flow. Using a Qwen3‑8B backbone, LEGO achieves 40.53% exact‑match accuracy on LawExamQA_Civil, surpassing baseline RAG and CoT models and matching larger models on multi‑hop and open‑ended benchmarks, with ablation studies confirming the complementary benefits of both modules.
arXiv:2607. 15879v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Much empirical legal research depends on translating unstructured text into structured variables.
The paper introduces a systematic method for comparing different formalizations of the same legal provision by analyzing their inferences on individual cases. It matches formalizations at the node level, derives shared interfaces, and uses a SAT solver to identify edge cases where any two formalizations disagree. The authors apply this approach to ten EU provisions formalized by nine advanced LLMs, finding that behavioral divergence is largely uncorrelated with structural agreement and that the resulting edge cases expose distinct types of disagreement, some reflecting real legal controversies.
The paper introduces Legal Rule Induction (LRI), a task that seeks to extract concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from analogous judicial precedents. It presents a reproducible pipeline for constructing LRI datasets and, using Chinese law, releases the first benchmark comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 court cases) for training and 216 expert‑annotated gold test sets. Experiments show that state‑of‑the‑art large language models struggle with over‑generalization and hallucination, but training on the new dataset significantly improves their ability to capture nuanced rule patterns across similar cases.