Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a
point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not
afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not
always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule
cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many
hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and
English books of reports.
An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an
en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation
undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874,
880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not
prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is .
. . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable
precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered
anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy .
. . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and
stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e.,
that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into
relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'"
(Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287,
296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly
onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a
number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and
extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or
inconsistency with other related rules of law.