stare decisis is the means doctrine in Illinois

2025“The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

2023“The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

2017Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). “ ‘It is the absolute duty of the circuit court to follow the decisions of the appellate court.’ ” In re R.C., 195 Ill. 2d 291, 297 (2001) (quoting In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d 32 , 36 (1988)).

2017Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). “ ‘It is the absolute duty of the circuit court to follow the decisions of the appellate court.’ ” In re R.C., 195 Ill. 2d 291, 297 (2001) (quoting In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d 32 , 36 (1988)).

2014Lakisha M., 227 Ill. 2d at 263 . ¶ 55 With respect to controlling precedent, this court observed in Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78, 94-95 (2007) (quoting Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)): “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.

2014Lakisha M., 227 Ill. 2d at 263 . ¶ 55 With respect to controlling precedent, this court observed in Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78, 94-95 (2007) (quoting Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)): “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.

2003Stare decisis permits society to presume that fundamental principles are established in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994); see also Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (2003) (“The doctrine promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 115 L.

2003Stare decisis permits society to presume that fundamental principles are established in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994); see also Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (2003) (“The doctrine promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 115 L.

2003Stare decisis permits society to presume that fundamental principles are established in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994); see also Wakulich v. Mraz , 203 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (2003) (“The doctrine ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ Payne v. Tennessee , 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 115 L.

2003Stare decisis permits society to presume that fundamental principles are established in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994); see also Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (2003) (“The doctrine promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 115 L.

2023Stare decisis is not an “inexorable command,” but “ ‘any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification.’ ” Id. (quoting Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212 (1984)).