{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,4]],"date-time":"2025-12-04T12:06:52Z","timestamp":1764850012262,"version":"3.46.0"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"IOS Press","isbn-type":[{"value":"9781643686387","type":"electronic"}],"license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,2]],"date-time":"2025-12-02T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1764633600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,2]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Research in AI and Law has traditionally focused on case-based reasoning in common law systems, where factual similarity and factor-based modeling dominate. Much less attention has been given to continental jurisdictions, where judicial decisions are formally non-binding but still exert significant interpretive influence. This paper investigates how precedents function as interpretive resources in statutory reasoning, using the Polish Supreme Court decision as a case study. We use the case frame method, which structures judicial reasoning into slots: interpreted provision, competing interpretations, supporting arguments, meta-rules, and final decision. By applying this model to the source case and its reception in later case law, we identify three recurring patterns: (i) cross-domain influence, where the interpretive meta-rule travels across criminal, administrative, and transitional justice contexts; (ii) different takeaways, where distinct interpretive holdings (e.g., evidentiary standards, procedural guarantees) are extracted from the same judgment; and (iii) modificatory application, where courts cite the precedent but reshape its operative force.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3233\/faia251572","type":"book-chapter","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,4]],"date-time":"2025-12-04T12:04:25Z","timestamp":1764849865000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Precedent as Interpretive Resource: A Case Frame Analysis of Statutory Reasoning"],"prefix":"10.3233","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2524-3976","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Micha\u0142","family":"Araszkiewicz","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Jagiellonian University in Krak\u00f3w, Department of Legal Theory"}]}],"member":"7437","container-title":["Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications","Legal Knowledge and Information Systems"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/ebooks.iospress.nl\/pdf\/doi\/10.3233\/FAIA251572","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,4]],"date-time":"2025-12-04T12:04:26Z","timestamp":1764849866000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/ebooks.iospress.nl\/doi\/10.3233\/FAIA251572"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,2]]},"ISBN":["9781643686387"],"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/faia251572","relation":{},"ISSN":["0922-6389","1879-8314"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0922-6389","type":"print"},{"value":"1879-8314","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,2]]}}}