"Because Holmes is being tried other diagnostic companies should be tried" is what I am trying to comment on.
Case law is applicable to a case under trial (as I understand it) because it provides you with judgement-based decision logic from prior analogous cases. It's not "because we tried A we should now try B" it's "the last time we tried something like B, the applicable judgement was from analogous trial A" but the decision to try B has to be made on it's own merits, not just because trial A happened.
Case law is applicable to a case under trial (as I understand it) because it provides you with judgement-based decision logic from prior analogous cases. It's not "because we tried A we should now try B" it's "the last time we tried something like B, the applicable judgement was from analogous trial A" but the decision to try B has to be made on it's own merits, not just because trial A happened.
IANAL btw