stare decisis doctrine in New Hampshire

2021See State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 157 (2008) (“Under the second . . . factor, we inquire into ‘the cost of a rule’s repudiation as it would fall on those who have relied reasonably on the rule’s continued application.’” (emphasis added)) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 855 (1992)). 2 Notwithstanding these developments, the full extent of the rights and protections intended to flow from them have been limited by statutes that are no longer consonant with the current definition of marriage.

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

2021See State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 157 (2008) (“Under the second . . . factor, we inquire into ‘the cost of a rule’s repudiation as it would fall on those who have relied reasonably on the rule’s continued application.’” (emphasis added)) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 855 (1992)). 2 Notwithstanding these developments, the full extent of the rights and protections intended to flow from them have been limited by statutes that are no longer consonant with the current definition of marriage.

2011While we acknowledge that we have on occasion used language indicating that the soundness of the reasoning behind the precedent is relevant to the stare decisis analysis, e.g., State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 156-57 (2008), we have not given that factor the prominence suggested by the concurring opinion.

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

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).

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).

2025See Boyle v. City of Portsmouth, 172 N.H. 781 , 787 (2020) (listing four factors and declining party’s request that we revisit a prior ruling because party failed to address any of the factors); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“[W]e confine our review to only those issues that the defendant has fully briefed.”).

2019Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012) (discussing the doctrine of stare decisis).

2016See State v. Smith, 166 N.H. 40, 44 (2014) (setting forth stare decisis factors).

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).

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

2003See id.