I would add the concept that the law, unlike software, is capable of openly defying logic. Courts are permitted to dismiss case law and rule in a completely new and unforeseen direction. That's how caselaw evolves. Someone breaks the pattern and, should others agree, that new thinking is adopted as new law.
All the important case, all the ones lawyers rely upon in arguments, began with a court or judge breaking from the pattern. That's why they progress up to higher authorities. That's why they supersede previous caselaw.
Legal rulings and statutes, etc. are pretty far removed from the type of deductive logic that can be "openly defied" in the sense that busted math calculations or if>then statements can be self-evidently wrong.
For example, the case Olmstead v. U.S. was a big deal in the 20s when the Supreme Court said the fourth amendment protection for "persons, houses, papers, and effects" didn't apply to taps on telephone wires. I disagree with that result not because it "openly defies logic" but because my understanding of the underlying importance of privacy is at odds with those of the justices. That's not a dispute about logic, it's a disagreement about values.
It's not like you have overturned the parallel postulate, the old mathematical system where it is true still exists, so it doesn't seem similar at all.
All the important case, all the ones lawyers rely upon in arguments, began with a court or judge breaking from the pattern. That's why they progress up to higher authorities. That's why they supersede previous caselaw.