The adherence of precedents and the paradigm of judicial binding in Brazil: a critical analysis in light of logic and the theory of precedents

Abstract

This article critically examines the application of judicial precedents in Brazil through the lens of formal logic and set theory, arguing that binding adherence requires more than thematic intersection between cases. It proposes that correct application demands containment of the ratio decidendi of the new case within that of the precedent, preserving its 'genetic load'. The study explores the distinction between facts and legal issues, deepens the understanding of ratio decidendi and obiter dictum, and critically analyzes STF and TST jurisprudence, with emphasis on Theme 725 and ADC 324. The article identifies undue expansion of theses to cases not consistent with their original context, especially in labor law, undermining legal certainty. The adopted methodology is based on practical case analysis in light of specialized precedent theory. The article proposes stricter thesis formulation, strengthening of distinguishing, and enhancement of constitutional complaint mechanisms. It concludes that without logical containment between the factual-legal sets of cases, expanded precedent application undermines the hermeneutic function of the judiciary, generating legal uncertainty and overload of superior courts.