society rule in New Hampshire

2020Div. of Motor Vehicles, 149 N.H. 502, 504 (2003) (quotation omitted).

2020“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Id. at 504 (quotations omitted). “[W]hen asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 539 (2011) (quotation omitted).

2020“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Id. at 504 (quotations omitted). “[W]hen asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 539 (2011) (quotation omitted).

2018The doctrine of stare decisis, however, "demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results." State v. Quintero , 162 N.H. 526 , 532, 34 A.3d 612 (2011) (quotation omitted).

2020Div. of Motor Vehicles, 149 N.H. 502, 504 (2003) (quotations omitted). “[W]hen asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has ‘come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.’” Id. (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854 (1992)).

2007The doctrine of stare decisis “demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law,” because “when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Brannigan v. Usitalo, 134 N.H. 50, 53 (1991) (quotations omitted). “[W]hen asked to reconsider a previous holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Gubitosi, 152 N.H

2020“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with 5 arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Id. at 659-60 (quotation omitted).

2010“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Id. at 659-60 (quotation omitted).

2009The doctrine of stare decisis “demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law,” because “when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” State v. Holmes, 154 N.H. 723, 724 (2007) (quotations omitted).

2009“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law because, when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” State v. Holmes, 154 N.H. 723, 724 (2007) (quotations omitted).

2007While we recognize that the doctrine of stare decisis “demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law,” Brannigan v. Usitalo, 134 N.H. 50, 53 (1991) (quotation omitted), “given the status of our standards of constitutional review, in our judgment it is better to undergo the hardships that may result from correcting these tests and bringing them into conformity with each other than to suffer the errors to persist,” Boulders, 153 N.H. at 641 .

2007The doctrine of stare decisis “demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law,” because “when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Brannigan v. Usitalo, 134 N.H. 50, 53 (1991) (quotations omitted). “[W]hen asked to reconsider a previous holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Gubitosi, 152 N.H

2025Stare decisis, “the idea that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions,” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 455 (2015), commands great respect in a society governed by the rule of law, and we do not lightly overrule a prior opinion.

2020Stare decisis, “the idea that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions,” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401, 2409 (2015), commands great respect in a society governed by the rule of law, and we do not lightly overrule a prior opinion, State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008).

2021Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (quotation omitted).

2013Dep’t. of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (quotation omitted).

2020Stare decisis, “the idea that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions,” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401, 2409 (2015), commands great respect in a society governed by the rule of law, and we do not lightly overrule a prior opinion, State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008).

2020“Thus, when asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” Id. 5 We will overturn a decision only after considering: (1) whether the rule has proven to be intolerable simply by defying practical workability; (2) whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequence of overruling; (3) whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no

2021“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, 159 N.H. 95, 102 (2009) (quotation omitted).

2021“Thus, when asked to reconsider a previous holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2014“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 231 (2013) (quotation omitted). ‘When asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2014“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 231 (2013) (quotation omitted). ‘When asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2008Cmty. Res. for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 760 (2007) (quotation omitted).

2007The doctrine of stare decisis “demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law,” because “when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Brannigan v. Usitalo, 134 N.H. 50, 53 (1991) (quotations omitted). “[W]hen asked to reconsider a previous holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Gubitosi, 152 N.H

1991Although not binding on a constitutional question, the doctrine of stare decisis is compelling when the earlier case: (1) was joined by a strong majority of the court; (2) has been “repeatedly and consistently ... accepted and applied” by the court that decided it; and (3) was “considered with special care.” Id. at 420 n.1.

1991It “is a doctrine that demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law.” Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416, 420 (1983).