would take on an added hazard of unpredictable legality. Without stability, the law could well loose (sic) 
its effectiveness in maintaining social control.” 
8 Stare decisis also ensures proper recognition of the wisdom 
and experience of the past. Justice Cardozo observed that “no single judge is likely to have ‘a vision at 
once so keen and so broad’ as to ensure that his new ideas of wise policy are indeed the most beneficial for 
society.” 
9 Finally, stare decisis enhances the image of the courts as the impartial interpreter of the law. 
“Stare decisis decreases the leeway granted to the individual judge to settle controversies in accordance 
with his own personal desires. … Indeed, the doctrine of stare decisis indirectly serves to restrict the law-
making role of the judge even in those cases presenting “open issues” not resolved by past precedent. … A 
sudden change in the composition of the judiciary, even at the highest level, should not present an equally 
sudden change in the substance of the law.” 
10 
In the federal system, all federal courts must follow the decisions of the Supreme Court as it is the final 
interpreter of the federal constitution and federal statutes. If, however, the Supreme Court has not ruled on 
an issue, then the federal trial courts (U.S. District Courts and U.S. Magistrate Courts) and federal appellate 
courts (Circuit Courts of Appeals) must follow decisions from their own circuit. Each circuit is treated, in 
effect, as its own jurisdiction, and the court of appeals for the various circuits are free to disagree with each 
other. 
Because stare decisis is not an absolute rule, courts may reject precedent by overruling earlier decisions. 
One factor that courts will consider before overruling earlier case law is the strength of the precedent. 
Another factor is the field of law involved. Courts seem to be more reluctant to override precedents 
governing property or trade where commercial enterprises are more likely to have relied quite heavily 
on the precedent. Courts also consider the initial source of precedent, such as statutory interpretation. 
For example, if the courts decided in 1950 that the statute meant that individuals could graze their cattle 
on federal lands without being in violation of any trespass laws, and then the federal government did 
not subsequently change the law, the legislature’s inaction indicates the interpretation was probably right. 
The most compelling basis upon which a court will overturn precedent, however, is if it perceives the 
presence or absence of changed circumstances. For example, scientific or technological developments may 
warrant the application of new rules. Consider the common law year and a day rule which required the 
government, in a murder prosecution, prove that the victim died within one year and a day of the attack. 
The rule is premised on the idea that there needed to be some showing that the defendant’s act caused the 
death. Medical science now makes it possible to trace the source of fatal blow, so murder statutes no longer 
include the year and a day rule.  One final ground for overruling a prior decision is general changes in 
the spirit of the times. For example, in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), the Court looked to “evolving 
standards of decency” in deciding whether the defendant’s punishment was cruel and unusual and thus 
violated the Eighth Amendment. 
8. Kerper, H. B. (1979). Introduction to the criminal justice system (2nd ed., pp. 49). West Publishing Company. 
9. Cardozo, B. N. (1924). The Growth of the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 
10. Kerper, H. B. (1979). Introduction to the criminal justice system (2nd ed., pp. 51-52). West Publishing Company. 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
106