Court judgments reveal how legal rules have been interpreted and applied to facts, providing a foundation for understanding structured legal reasoning. However, existing automated approaches for capturing legal reasoning, including large language models, often fail to identify the relevant legal context, do not accurately trace how facts relate to legal norms, and may misrepresent the layered structure of judicial reasoning. These limitations hinder the ability to capture how courts apply the law to facts in practice. In this paper, we address these challenges by constructing a legal knowledge graph from 648 Japanese administrative court decisions. Our method extracts components of legal reasoning using prompt-based large language models, normalizes references to legal provisions, and links facts, norms, and legal applications through an ontology of legal inference. The resulting graph captures the full structure of legal reasoning as it appears in real court decisions, making implicit reasoning explicit and machine-readable. We evaluate our system using expert annotated data, and find that it achieves more accurate retrieval of relevant legal provisions from facts than large language model baselines and retrieval-augmented methods.

Building upon a formal, event-centric model for the diachronic evolution of legal norms grounded in the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRMoo), this paper addresses the essential first step of publishing this model's foundational entity-the abstract legal Work (F1)-on the Semantic Web. We propose a detailed, property-by-property mapping of the LRMoo F1 Work to the widely adopted schema.org/Legislation vocabulary. Using Brazilian federal legislation from the Normas.leg.br portal as a practical case study, we demonstrate how to create interoperable, machine-readable descriptions via JSON-LD, focusing on stable URN identifiers, core metadata, and norm relationships. This structured mapping establishes a stable, URI-addressable anchor for each legal norm, creating a verifiable "ground truth". It provides the essential, interoperable foundation upon which subsequent layers of the model, such as temporal versions (Expressions) and internal components, can be built. By bridging formal ontology with web-native standards, this work paves the way for building deterministic and reliable Legal Knowledge Graphs (LKGs), overcoming the limitations of purely probabilistic models.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems in the legal domain face a critical challenge: standard, flat-text retrieval is blind to the hierarchical, diachronic, and causal structure of law, leading to anachronistic and unreliable answers. This paper introduces the Structure-Aware Temporal Graph RAG (SAT-Graph RAG), an ontology-driven framework designed to overcome these limitations by explicitly modeling the formal structure and diachronic nature of legal norms. We ground our knowledge graph in a formal, LRMoo-inspired model that distinguishes abstract legal Works from their versioned Expressions. We model temporal states as efficient aggregations that reuse the versioned expressions (CTVs) of unchanged components, and we reify legislative events as first-class Action nodes to make causality explicit and queryable. This structured backbone enables a unified, planner-guided query strategy that applies explicit policies to deterministically resolve complex requests for (i) point-in-time retrieval, (ii) hierarchical impact analysis, and (iii) auditable provenance reconstruction. Through a case study on the Brazilian Constitution, we demonstrate how this approach provides a verifiable, temporally-correct substrate for LLMs, enabling higher-order analytical capabilities while drastically reducing the risk of factual errors. The result is a practical framework for building more trustworthy and explainable legal AI systems.

Knowledge representation and reasoning in law are essential to facilitate the automation of legal analysis and decision-making tasks. In this paper, we propose a new approach based on legal science, specifically legal taxonomy, for representing and reasoning with legal documents. Our approach interprets the regulations in legal documents as binary trees, which facilitates legal reasoning systems to make decisions and resolve logical contradictions. The advantages of this approach are twofold. First, legal reasoning can be performed on the basis of the binary tree representation of the regulations. Second, the binary tree representation of the regulations is more understandable than the existing sentence-based representations. We provide an example of how our approach can be used to interpret the regulations in a legal document.

Against the background of the emerging debate about personalized law, this book chapter explores how Big Data and algorithm-based regulation could fundamentally change the design and structure of legal norms: impersonal law based on typifications could be replaced by a more personalized law, based on "granular legal norms". We argue that the use of legal typifications which is a hallmark of impersonal law can be conceptualized as the answer to an information problem, a concession to the imperfections of a legal system administered by humans. The emergence of super-human capacities of information-processing through artificial intelligence could make it possible to personalize the law and achieve a level of "granularity" that has hitherto been unachieved.