Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - Reasoning from Precedent and the Principle of Stare Decisis

  • Melvin A. Eisenberg, University of California, Berkeley
  • Book:
    Legal Reasoning
    Published online:
    22 September 2022
    Print publication:
    29 September 2022, pp 13-24

  • Summary

    The foundation of most rule-based reasoning is the principle of stare decisis, meaning to stand by things decided. Under this principle, when a court decides a case that falls within a rule established in a precedent decided by a superior court or the deciding court, the court must apply that rule, subject to the limits of the principle. The best justification of stare decisis is that complex societies need a great amount of law to facilitate private planning, shape private conduct, and facilitate the settlement of private disputes. Because American legislatures do not have the capacity or ability to enact more than a limited number of private law rules, private law falls largely to the courts. Without the principle of stare decisis, rules adopted in judicial opinions would not be binding and there would be no common law.

    There are several limitations on the principle of stare decisis. The most important is that in most areas of the common law if a rule established by precedent is not even substantially congruent with social morality, social policy, and experience, it may be overruled.