Ever heard of stare decisis?

It is a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent
must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be
decided differently by the current justices. This policy is based on the
assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the
major
objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate
their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the
governing rules of law. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988)
46 Cal.3d 287, 296. Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces
an onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number
of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of
public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with
other related rules of law.  I don't think there is any real debate that the
Ex Parte Merryman case is controlling on this point of law.

JDS







To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html