The common law doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court has decided a legal issue, subsequent cases presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision.1 But the doctrine is not an inflexible rule. Judicial decisions simply determine the rights of the parties to an action that is before the court at a particular time in history. They are not, and are not meant to be, immutable laws governing the conduct of mankind and designed for the ages, such as the Ten Commandments. Rather, opinions “must be read in the setting of the particular cases and as the product of preoccupation with their special facts.”2 The “precedential value of a judicial opinion is limited to the question presented by the facts of the case before the court.”3
Stare decisis is “a principle of policy” and not a mechanical formula of adherence to a prior decision, however questionable.4 While the doctrine is not to be lightly cast aside, a court should not hesitate to overrule its precedents “when persuaded by the ‘lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning.’”5 Adherence to a precedent “should depend upon its continuing practicality and the demands of justice.”6
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
