This article analyses the use of binding precedents by the Brazilian Supreme Court in the light of three conceptions of precedents, which are developed by F. Schauer (precedents as rules), C. Sunstein (precedents as analogies) and R. Dworkin (precedents as principles). After the exposition of the main aspects of each theory, based respectively on the concepts of entrenched generalizations, incompletely theorized agreements and chain novel, the article debates the arguments that they can provide for the use of precedents in Brazilian law.
Precedents; Brazilian Supreme Court; Binding Precedents