Tractability of Theory Patching

In this paper we consider the problem of `theory patching', in which we are given a domain theory, some of whose components are indicated to be possibly flawed, and a set of labeled training examples for the domain concept. The theory patching problem is to revise only the indicated components of the theory, such that the resulting theory correctly classifies all the training examples. Theory patching is thus a type of theory revision in which revisions are made to individual components of the theory. Our concern in this paper is to determine for which classes of logical domain theories the theory patching problem is tractable. We consider both propositional and first-order domain theories, and show that the theory patching problem is equivalent to that of determining what information contained in a theory is `stable' regardless of what revisions might be performed to the theory. We show that determining stability is tractable if the input theory satisfies two conditions: that revisions to each theory component have monotonic effects on the classification of examples, and that theory components act independently in the classification of examples in the theory. We also show how the concepts introduced can be used to determine the soundness and completeness of particular theory patching algorithms.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file

The Case for Nonmutual Privity in Vicarious Liability Relationships: Pushing the Frontiers of the Law of Claim Preclusion

This article sheds light on an evolving area of preclusion law—nonmutual claim preclusion and the related issue of privity between parties to a vicarious liability relationship—that merits scholarly attention and greater doctrinal clarity. To illustrate, if an injured party asserts a negligence claim against a truck driver, and judgment is rendered against the injured party based on a finding of the driver’s nonnegligence, may the driver’s employer invoke claim preclusion or issue preclusion in a subsequent action by the injured party? Are the employer and his employee in privity with each other despite the lack of mutuality? When this fact pattern actually became the subject of a sample multiple-choice question published in 2014 by the National Committee of Bar Examiners, several procedural scholars responded that a plausible case could be made for either of two of the four choices—claim preclusion or issue preclusion. Their various responses reveal a need to provide a measure of coherence to this corner of preclusion law. These differing doctrinal views raise three significant issues addressed in this article. First, does claim preclusion bar the suit against the truck driver’s employer or only issue preclusion? Second, if the employer can reap the benefits of claim preclusion, is nonmutual claim preclusion available in the first instance or only as a fallback if issue preclusion is unavailable? Third, to the extent that nonmutual claim preclusion is applicable, is it justified doctrinally as an extension of privity to include employee and employer or as an exception to privity? This Article proposes that adding derivative liability relationships to the recognized categories of substantive legal relationships that “are sometimes collectively referred to as ‘privity’” and applying nonmutual claim preclusion, even where issue preclusion would otherwise have been available, is—and as a matter of policy should be—the next logical step in the evolution of preclusion law. The law of preclusion has evolved progressively beyond the formalist rule of mutuality that traditionally served as the basis for the so-called “narrow and broad exceptions” to the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As a consequence of the erosion of mutuality, a substantial number of American jurisdictions apply those exceptions to claim preclusion by expanding the concept of privity to include vicarious liability relationships

The Fruits of Shady Grove: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Part II will sketch the facts of the case to prepare for an exploration of the roots of Shady Grove in Part III, which traces the evolution of the Court’s Erie jurisprudence. At various points along the way, I will stop to anticipate where one or more of the several opinions in Shady Grove will shed light, in Part IV, on the meaning of Shady Grov

A Tale of Two Counties: Divergent Responses in Los Angeles and Orange County Superior Courts to the Ban on Electronic Recording in California Court Reporters Ass\u27n v. Judicial Council

This Article explores the authority of superior courts to use electronic recording technology to make a verbatim record of superior court proceedings-without express statutory authorization-in the aftermath of the CCRA decisions. Rather than just arguing that the CCRA decisions were wrongly decided, this Article explores ways to narrowly construe the CCRA opinions to permit superior courts and their litigants to use rapidly evolving electronic recording technologies as an alternative to traditional stenographic court reporting

Toward a New Federalism in State Civil Justice: Developing a Uniform Code of State Civil Procedure Through a Collaborative Rule-Making Process

There is a sense of deja vu to the vision of a uniform body of state procedural law applicable in every state court throughout the nation. Swift v. Tysons\u27 dream of a nationally uniform body of state substantive common law that mirrored an evolving body of uniform federal common law never materialized because state courts refused to defer to federal common law, which was applied only in federal court. Swift itself was overturned in 1938 by the Supreme Court\u27s ruling in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins that federal courts must defer to the substantive lawmaking authority of state courts. But almost simultaneously with the demise of Swift, the dream of uniform state common law was reincarnated into a vision of uniform state procedural law through the enactment of the Rules Enabling Act (REA) and the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure