  We propose a new, structured, logic-based framework for legal reasoning and
argumentation: Instead of using a single, unstructured meaning space, theory
graphs organize knowledge and inference into collections of modular meaning
spaces organized by inheritance and interpretation. Context graphs extend
theory graphs by attack relations and interpret theories as knowledge contexts
of agents in argumentation. We introduce the context graph paradigm by modeling
the well-studied case Popov v. Hayashi, concentrating on the role of analogical
reasoning in context graphs.
