Jurimetrics is witnessing a revival in the form of legal analytics. Data Science techniques are being employed to analyse and predict court decisions. Several US studies involving Supreme Court decisions have caused quite some press and upheaval about the potential for predicting court decisions. In Europe, ECtHR case analyses have similarly created optimism about legal analytics capabilities. In this contribution, we provide a critical analysis of the these studies and their implications by examining more closely how these data-driven analyses of court decisions are actually carried out, and by placing them in perspective of law and the legal adjudicative system. We first address the data used in the studies, the methodologies employed in the studies and predictive systems, the scope and quality of the predictions. We then discuss the legal context and politics of the underlying decision processes, touching on the purported nature of law and legal adjudication and the potential effects of predictive systems on access to justice.