> Does the heavy emphasis on "precedent" in court cases put too much of an emphasis on fairness?

Not sure, but I understand the reasoning. The idea is, if something's already been hashed out in court and determined to be a certain way, why should the very same legal system redo all that work unless there is reason to believe the first verdict was flawed? Think of our courts as a collection of different people with different interpretations of the law, and this doesn't make sense. But think of our legal system as a single system bound to the exact same principles and laws, and it makes perfect sense.

So I think the use of a "legal precedent" to determine court cases is perhaps not so much to cater to fairness as it is to respect a court's interpretation of the law and, unless given reason to doubt, assume that interpretation was arrived at soundly.