Stare Decisis
Literal meaning: “To stand by things decided.”
What does the Latin term "Stare Decisis" mean in law?
Stare decisis is the doctrine obligating courts to follow the holdings of prior decisions when ruling on subsequent cases presenting similar facts and legal issues. Under vertical stare decisis, lower courts must follow the precedent set by higher courts within the same jurisdiction. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court's practice of adhering to its own prior rulings. While the doctrine promotes predictability, uniformity, and judicial efficiency, it is not an inexorable command — the Supreme Court has recognized that it may overrule prior precedent when there are compelling reasons, such as when an earlier decision is unworkable or has been undermined by subsequent developments in the law.
Source: General · Legal Latin
Legal Definition
Stare decisis is the doctrine obligating courts to follow the holdings of prior decisions when ruling on subsequent cases presenting similar facts and legal issues. Under vertical stare decisis, lower courts must follow the precedent set by higher courts within the same jurisdiction. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court's practice of adhering to its own prior rulings. While the doctrine promotes predictability, uniformity, and judicial efficiency, it is not an inexorable command — the Supreme Court has recognized that it may overrule prior precedent when there are compelling reasons, such as when an earlier decision is unworkable or has been undermined by subsequent developments in the law.
How It's Used
Stare decisis appears throughout legal writing whenever precedent is discussed. Advocates invoke it when arguing that a court should follow (or depart from) established case law. It is central to common-law reasoning and is frequently discussed in constitutional law when the Court considers overruling prior decisions.
Example Sentences
The court declined to overturn its earlier ruling, citing stare decisis and the reliance interests of parties who had structured their affairs around the prior holding.
Petitioner argues that stare decisis does not apply because the foundational reasoning of the precedent has been eroded by subsequent decisions.
Under the principle of stare decisis, this circuit is bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause.