Marylin Raisch, who's credentials include an expertise in Civil and Common Law, opines about Jewish Law:
There is no appeal or stare decisis; one can ask the court to correct an erroneous judgment or re-open a criminal case. The tradition is much closer to that of the European civil law in that regard.
According to the Wikipedia entry you linked in the comments, stare decisis - the legal doctrine that previous rulings are binding on future judges - is a fundamental pillar of the rationale behind common law, in that it is regarded as unfair that two people with the same relevant facts get a different result.
That being said, the idea that Halacha has no stare decisis is overstating it, as at a certain point previous rulings do become authoritative for precedential reasons. For example, the Talmud Bavli is the final word in the Halachic disputes that precede it, and so forth. However, that mechanism has to do with its acceptance and the inability to reverse that acceptance rather than a philosophical commitment that two people receive the same result.
And although there is no appeals court in the method of English Common Law, there were layers of authoritative courts in the times of the Beis HaMikdash, as seen by the description of a Zaken Mamrei in Sanhedrin, where he would go through layers of appeals before getting the final ruling from the Sanhedrin that sat in the Temple.
So in the end, it seems that Halacha is its own thing, with characteristics which have similarities to Civil Law, and others which have similarities to Common Law. One aspect of Common Law that Halacha definitely doesn't have is dicta - the idea that an opinion expressed in a decision that doesn't have a bearing on the direct case being decided is non-binding.
