Owing to editorial errors in the article by Mullins,Footnote ¹ angled brackets have been misplaced in several formulae. The sentences in question follow:

• • 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 ^s.

• • Suppose the court reasons against the background of a case base Γ₁ that contains only one case, c ₁ = 〈X ₁, r ₁, 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∪ ${\lcub〈{X}\comma \;{r}\comma \;{s}\;〉\rcub}$ is exclusion consistent.

• • Adding the case c ₂ = 〈X ₂, r ₂, δ〉 to Γ₁ would introduce inconsistency into the case base because we could then derive the priority relation $\lcub {f_1^\pi \comma \;f_2^\pi \comma \;f_3^\pi } \rcub \lt _{c_2}\lcub {f_1^\delta } \rcub $, which is inconsistent with the priority order $\lt _{c_1}$.

• • 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 ${c}^{\prime} = 〈{X}^{\prime}\comma \;{r}^{\prime}\comma \;\bar{s}\;〉$ in Γ, ${X}^{\prime}\,{\rm \models }Premise\lpar r \rpar $ and Premise(r ′) ∈ Excluded _c.

• • Supposing that the decision for defendant in this case is represented by the case c ₅ = 〈X ₅, r ₄, δ〉, ${\rm \Gamma }_1\cup \lcub {c_5} \rcub $ 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 c ₁ = 〈X ₂, r ₁, π〉, where the decision-maker is as before faced with the new fact scenario $X_2 = \lcub {f_1^\pi \comma \;f_1^\delta } \rcub $.

• • To illustrate this, consider a case base Γ₂ involving the two cases introduced above, c ₁ = 〈X ₂, r ₁, π〉 and c ₃ = 〈X ₃, r ₁, π〉, recalling that $X_1^{\bar{\pi }} = \lcub {f_1^\delta } \rcub $ and $X_3^{\bar{\pi\; }} = \lcub {f_2^\delta } \rcub $.

• • Instead the judge rules for the plaintiff, with the ruling represented by case c ₆ = 〈X ₂, r ₁, π〉 because they take $\lcub {f_1^\delta } \rcub $ to be excluded from being a reason for ruling for the defendant.

• • It follows from (5) and Definition 4 that where c = 〈X, r, s〉 , (7) $P\subseteq X^{\bar{s}}$ and (8) Premise(r)⊆ Q .

We regret the errors.