Complicated business. You have to respect the court's decision in order to provide a legal environment that does not change everyday. This stability of the rules of the game is the core issue to a healthy society (business, family, etc).

So in order to reexamine a decision we must have some new information that makes the new case different enough to justify the reasoning of something different. The court should never really "break a precedent", it should look at a new case with this new information and produce a new reasoning, so a new precedent for a new "type" of case.

The difference is the following: case A gets decided 5-4; the losing side appeals; the appellation should be 9-0. Case B is set forth before the court, slightly different case, with new information; this one could be 4-5 if feels different enough; the appellation should then be 0-9.

The lawyer's job for a case C then becomes trying to convince the court by analogy which precedent is "closer": case A or B.

So a "wrong past precedent" should be defeated pointing out why it doesn't apply to the current case. It should go away naturally.

You can review a case and overturn a precedent, but that is a wasp's nest.