stare decisis doctrine in Vermont

2022He “does not seriously question that the present law of Vermont precludes contribution among joint tortfeasors, intentional or negligent.” Howard, 132 Vt. at 435 , 321 A.2d at 74-75 . “[A]lthough we are not ‘slavish adherents’ to [the doctrine of stare decisis], neither do we lightly overturn recent precedent, especially where the precedent could be changed easily by legislation at any time.” O’Connor v. City of Rutland, 172 Vt. 570, 570 , 772 A.2d 551, 552 (2001) (mem.).

2022He “does not seriously question that the present law of Vermont precludes contribution among joint tortfeasors, intentional or negligent.” Howard, 132 Vt. at 435 , 321 A.2d at 74-75 . “[A]lthough we are not ‘slavish adherents’ to [the doctrine of stare decisis], neither do we lightly overturn recent precedent, especially where the precedent could be changed easily by legislation at any time.” O’Connor v. City of Rutland, 172 Vt. 570, 570 , 772 A.2d 551, 552 (2001) (mem.).

2007See, e.g., Coyle v. Coyle, 2007 VT 21, ¶ 7 , ___ Vt. ___, 925 A.2d 996 (mem.) (rejecting suggestion that Court revisit its interpretation of certain statute, and stating that where certain understanding of statute had been established by recent, earlier decision, doctrine of stare decisis was controlling).

2007See, e.g., Coyle v. Coyle, 2007 VT 21, ¶ 7 , ___ Vt. ___, 925 A.2d 996 (mem.) (rejecting suggestion that Court revisit its interpretation of certain statute, and stating that where certain understanding of statute had been established by recent, earlier decision, doctrine of stare decisis was controlling).

2022To 3 overturn precedent, “we generally require more than mere disagreement.” State v. Berini, 167 Vt. 565, 566 , 701 A.2d 1055, 1056 (1997) (mem.). ¶ 8.

2022To 3 overturn precedent, “we generally require more than mere disagreement.” State v. Berini, 167 Vt. 565, 566 , 701 A.2d 1055, 1056 (1997) (mem.). ¶ 8.

2026I am mindful that the Court does not “lightly overturn recent precedent,” In re Barber, 2018 VT 78 , ¶ 2 n.1, 208 Vt. 77 , 195 A.3d 364 (quotation omitted), given the “fundamental importance” of “the doctrine of stare decisis,” Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172 (1989) (quotation omitted), superseded by statute, Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071 , on other grounds as recognized in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008).

2026The Patterson Court discussed various grounds that might provide the “special justification” needed to depart from the doctrine of stare decisis in statutory interpretation cases. 491 U.S. at 172 .

2020Finally, a third line of cases “require HGN test results to be scientifically validated in each individual case, or at least recognized as scientifically valid once by an appellate court within the jurisdiction.” Id. at 706 (quotation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Dahood, 814 A.2d 159, 168 (N.H. 2002) (concluding that HGN test satisfies Daubert and noting, “under the doctrine of stare decisis, our decision today will be binding and, as a result, courts will not be required to establish the scientific reliability of the HGN test . . . in future cases”). ¶ 27.

2020Finally, a third line of cases “require HGN test results to be scientifically validated in each individual case, or at least recognized as scientifically valid once by an appellate court within the jurisdiction.” Id. at 706 (quotation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Dahood, 814 A.2d 159, 168 (N.H. 2002) (concluding that HGN test satisfies Daubert and noting, “under the doctrine of stare decisis, our decision today will be binding and, as a result, courts will not be required to establish the scientific reliability of the HGN test . . . in future cases”). ¶ 27.

2001Thus, while I respect the doctrine of stare decisis, as Justice Jackson once observed, “I see no reason why [the Court] should be consciously wrong today because [it] was unconsciously wrong yesterday.” Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, 639-40 (1948) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

1995See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Trabucco, 791 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986) (stare decisis not narrowly confined to parties and privies, its broad impact reaches strangers to earlier litigation); United States v. 177.51 Acres of Land, 716 F.2d 78, 81 (1st Cir. 1983) (stare decisis invoked to prevent successive lawsuits by landowners not parties to original suit); see also IB J.

1995See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Trabucco, 791 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986) (stare decisis not narrowly confined to parties and privies, its broad impact reaches strangers to earlier litigation); United States v. 177.51 Acres of Land, 716 F.2d 78, 81 (1st Cir. 1983) (stare decisis invoked to prevent successive lawsuits by landowners not parties to original suit); see also IB J.

1985Bielski v. Schulze, 16 Wis. 2d 1, 11 , 114 N.W.2d 105, 110 (1962) (footnote omitted).

1985Bielski v. Schulze, 16 Wis. 2d 1, 11 , 114 N.W.2d 105, 110 (1962) (footnote omitted).