PROTECTED REASONS AND PRECEDENTIAL CONSTRAINT—ERRATUM

• For any case c = 〈X, r, s〉, Factors(c) = X, Rule(c) = r and Outcome(c) = s. • In order to ensure coherence, we stipulate that for any case c = 〈X, r, s〉 belonging to a case base Γ, Premise(r) ⊆ X. • Suppose the court reasons against the background of a case base Γ1 that contains only one case, c1 = 〈X1, r1, π〉. • In a new fact scenario X, a decision in X based on the rule r and leading to outcome s will satisfy the protected reason model of precedential constraint just in case Γ∪ {〈X , r , s 〉} is exclusion consistent. • Adding the case c2 = 〈X2, r2, δ〉 to Γ1 would introduce inconsistency into the case base because we could then derive the priority relation {f p 1 , f p 2 , f p 3 } ,c2 {f d 1 }, which is inconsistent with the priority order ,c1 . • A case base Γ is exclusion consistent just in case there is no case c = 〈X, r, s〉 in Γ such that for another case c ′ = 〈X ′, r ′, s 〉 in Γ, X ′ oPremise(r) and Premise(r ′)∈ Excludedc. • Supposing that the decision for defendant in this case is represented by the case c5 = 〈X5, r4, δ〉, G1 < {c5} will not be exclusion inconsistent. • To illustrate the equivalence between the two approaches we can return to the same example of a case base Γ1 involving the previous decision c1 = 〈X2, r1, π〉, where the decision-maker is as before faced with the new fact scenario X2 = {f p 1 , f d 1 }.