"Stare Decisis"
The doctrine states that courts should adhere to the law as set forth in prior cases decided by the highest court of a given jurisdiction as long as the principle derived from those cases is logically essential to their decision, is reasonable, and is appropriate to contemporary circumstances. (Frederick G. Kempin, Jr., Historical Introduction to Anglo-American Law In A Nutshell, Third Edition, West Publishing Co., c 1990, pgs. 14-15.)
Wood, for the plaintiffs in Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842), provides a useful summary of the principle of stare decisis:
"...The true point to be ascertained is, whether that decision is state law; whether it has been so far adopted and acted upon, as to form a part of its unwritten law. There are two branches of unwritten law in relation to this subject. 1. Those old and well- established doctrines about which there can be no dispute, and which can never be modified or changed, without legislative interference, such as the law of descents. 2. Adjudications upon cases constantly arising, attended with new combinations of circumstances. It is in reference to this second branch, that the rule applies. Under the maxim stare decisis, these adjudications form part of the unwritten common law. But they may, occasionally, when found not to work well, be modified. This fiexibility is made to harmonize with the stability resulting from the application of the above maxim. The power of reconsidering and new-modelling adjudications will be exercised with great delicacy and caution. Adjudications once deliberately made, are held as forming part of the settled law, notwithstanding this occasional interference with the rule. An occasional deviation does not impair the character of a fixed rule. When an adjudication is once deliberately made by a court competent to settle the law, the power of disturbing or remodelling it does not belong to the tribunal of a foreign government...."
