The precedent system itself depends on what is technically dicta.

Evidence

Yet if providing reasons for their decisions is part of what we expect courts to do, and if providing reasons is a key to the actual workability of a system of precedent, then the traditional distinction between holding and dicta may be more problematic than commonly thought. Because a reason is necessarily broader than the outcome that it is a reason giving a reason is saying something broader then necessary to decide the particular case. And that seems to be dicta. What is technically dictanot totally necessary for the result-is precisely what it is that makes it possible for us to generalize from a very specific ruling and thus to use it as a precedent in the future. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 98

Categorization

• SEED: Angle: the reason-giving apparatus of law undermines its own formal categories — a claim about how institutions rely on what they officially disavow.
• XREF: connects to: Stated precedent rules often fail to determine later case outcomes — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 216

Related

• Following precedent is treated as a fallacy outside of law. (similarity 0.80)
• Precedent constrains outcomes while analogy merely supports arguments (similarity 0.79)
• A binding precedent obliges courts to follow it or distinguish it. (similarity 0.78)
• A judicial precedent attaches specific legal consequences to detailed case facts. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Stated precedent rules often fail to determine later case outcomes #expands (0.55) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 216