Following precedent is treated as a fallacy outside of law.

Evidence

When we turn to horizontal precedent, however, the arguments in its favor are less obvious. Stare decisis is a pervasive principle of the common law,’ but it is far less so in nonlegal contexts. Scientists, for example, are not expected to reach the same conclusions as their predecessors just because their predecessors have reached them. It would be surprising if Congress were to make the same decisions as previous Congresses only because previous Congresses had made them. And no one believes that presidents should follow those decisions of their predecessors with which they disagree. Indeed, we often elect them not to. Thus it is no surprise that books about logic typically treat arguments from precedent as fallacies, because the fact that someone has reached a conclusion in the past says nothing about whether it is the correct conclusion now. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 73

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 66

Related

• Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. (similarity 0.86)
• Stare decisis requires treating prior decisions as binding regardless of perceived correctness. (similarity 0.83)
• Precedent constrains outcomes while analogy merely supports arguments (similarity 0.81)
• Precedent obliges judges to follow cases they believe were wrongly decided. (similarity 0.80)
• The precedent system itself depends on what is technically dicta. (similarity 0.80)
• Precedent expresses a universal human need for predictability, not a common-law peculiarity (similarity 0.79)
• Obeying rules, precedent, and authority means deciding against one’s own best judgment. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. #corroborates (0.60) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 66