Lawyers (and hence, judges) are really good at arguing why the earlier case does not apply in a present case, even if most reasonable people would think the two

Lawyers (and hence, judges) are really good at arguing why the earlier case does not apply in a present case, even if most reasonable people would think the two cases are essentially the same. It's a fundamental part of lawyer training, and if they want to let BigCorp go and bring the hammer down on the little guy, they can make up a hundred reasons for it.