Why do judges commonly predicate their own decisions on earlier decisions authored by others? What makes those otherwise discrete and separate decisions of the past nonetheless hang together and form a powerful system of reference to subsequent cases? While legal justification for legal precedent remains remarkably limited, a leading account attributes this ostensibly puzzling authority to its efficiency-enhancing properties. However, conservation of judicial resources can hardly motivate judges to abide by past decisions. Moreover, the consequentialist nature of the rationalist explanation tends to exaggerate the predictive force of legal precedent. No legal precedent guarantees a particular court ruling, while an overarching logic of judi...