The full definition and exceptions from the site below is quoted. My
comments follow.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm

>STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal
>that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
>
>To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a
>point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not
>afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not
>always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule
>cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many
>hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English
>books of reports.
>
>An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an
>en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation
>undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874,
>880 (9th Cir. 1989).
>
>Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and,
>if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental
>jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually 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 a rightly 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'm not a lawyer, and my studies of the law have been limited to business
law courses, which I'm currently teaching to my homebound HS student. It
does seem that the fuller definition above gives greater hope to
overturning court cases which were decided in haste, anger, friendship,
politics, etc. I'm encouraged to know that many hundreds of overruled cases
can be found in books or reports. In fact, without the ability to right
former wrongs, it would seem to me that early mistakes in civil rights
could not have been overturned in the 20th century.

                                         Anne

At 03:29 PM 3/17/03 -0500, Jeff wrote:
>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

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org


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