...if you mean some background thought then:
Let's say that in a hypothetical case against the government, a summary case, originating in the local court, it is all one way for the defendant, so the government would need to change the law or rectify the loophole by addressing the failure which caused the defendant to win.
So, they do that, easy enough, they have the statutory power, but they do that instead of arguing a case which will be all one way in an appeal to a higher jurisdiction.
...That means the precedent was set in the local court, but because the government change the law or close the loophole in some other way, the precedent is mortus est?
I would be interested to learn how many summary cases have been like that, to observe how weak if not negligent the government have been in enacting such laws.