Stare decisis, unlike repose doctrines, wrongly perpetuates future inequality.

Evidence

Stare decisis? Notice that res judicata, statutes of limitations, accord and satisfaction, release, and like doctrines of settlement and repose of individual claims, may operate so that one man’s claim is disposed of on a ground which admittedly would not be applied to like claims of other men? But is stare decisis supposed to work that way also? So as to result, besides, in continuing inequality in the law which governs the indefinite future? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3113

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: Distinguishes individual-claim settlement doctrines (res judicata, limitations) from stare decisis by pointing out the latter creates ongoing prospective inequality — a genuinely crisp normative separation.
• XREF: Echoes ch38’s claim that stare decisis can produce internally inconsistent patterns of decision. — connects to: Stare decisis can produce internally inconsistent patterns of decision — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2866; Stare decisis scope depends on whether Congress legislates general ideas or specific applications. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3093