Stare decisis requires treating prior decisions as binding regardless of perceived correctness.
Evidence
Although courts may occasionally overrule their own previous decisions, doing so requires more than just the belief that the previous de cision was in error. If that were all that were necessary, stare decisis would become meaningless, because it is precisely the point of stare decisis that a court should treat a previous decision as binding just because of its existence and not because it is perceived to be correct. If every time a court believed an earlier decision to be mistaken it could overrule that decision, then there would be no principle of stare decisis at all. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 106
Categorization
- DEFINE: Clarifies the substantive content of stare decisis — that it binds by existence, not by perceived correctness.
- XREF: connects to: Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 66; A binding precedent obliges courts to follow it or distinguish it. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 102; Precedent obliges judges to follow cases they believe were wrongly decided. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 69 (+4 more)
Related
- Stare decisis binds only when judges would rather not follow precedent (similarity 0.89)
- Precedent obliges judges to follow cases they believe were wrongly decided. (similarity 0.86)
- Following precedent is treated as a fallacy outside of law. (similarity 0.83)
- Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. (similarity 0.82)
- A binding precedent obliges courts to follow it or distinguish it. (similarity 0.81)
- Overruling precedent is never an absolute good but a choice between relative evils (similarity 0.80)
- Absence of unfair surprise never justifies overruling precedent alone (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Precedent obliges judges to follow cases they believe were wrongly decided.
#corroborates(0.95) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 69 - Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent.
#expands(0.80) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 66 - A binding precedent obliges courts to follow it or distinguish it.
#expands(0.70) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 102