Departing from precedent is justified when a rule’s harm outweighs its stability.

Evidence

The question whether the doctrine of stare decisis should be adhered to … is always a choice between relative evils. When it appears that the evil resulting from a continuation of the accepted rule must be productive of greater mischief to the community than can possibly ensure from disregarding previous adjudications on the subject, courts have frequently and wisely departed from precedent. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2492

Categorization

• XREF: Frames stare decisis as a cost-benefit judgment rather than an absolute command, echoing the course’s justice-versus-certainty tension.
• SHARE: Good line for anyone arguing over whether a bad precedent should be overruled.