11 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ramosgreen2 sentences2011Although “[t]hese factors guide our judgment, ... no single factor is wholly determinative,” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 154 (2008), because “the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” State v. Ramos, 149 N.H. 118, 127 (2003) (quotation omitted). 2007The stability of the law does not require the continuance of recognized error.” State v. Ramos, 149 N.H. 118, 127-28 (2003) (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Trustees of Dartmouth Collegegreen2 sentences1979While recognizing the value of stability in legal rules, especially those affecting property rights, we have also indicated that "[t]he doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed." Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 89 N.H. 471, 474 , 200 A. 786, 788 (1938); see R. von Moschzisker, Stare Decisis in Courts of Last Resort, 37 HARV. 1979While recognizing the value of stability in legal rules, especially those affecting property rights, we have also indicated that "[t]he doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed." Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 89 N.H. 471, 474 , 200 A. 786, 788 (1938); see R. von Moschzisker, Stare Decisis in Courts of Last Resort, 37 HARV. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Quinterogreen2 sentences2020Id. at 533 . 2014Id. at 153-54 . “[N]o single factor is wholly determinative because the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” Quintero, 162 N.H. at 533 (quotations and citation omitted). *721 The defendant argues that King should be overruled “in light of the legal developments surrounding identification evidence.” He notes that we considered the opinions of other courts in King , but counters that “many courts have held that Biggers applies to in-court identifications” and asserts that, “[o]f the federal circuit courts and state supreme courts that appear to | 1 | 4 |
Ford v. New Hampshire Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2021“Although these factors guide our judgment, no single factor is wholly determinative, because the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” Id. 2020Dep’t of Transp., 163 N.H. 284, 290 (2012). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Durangreen2 sentences2014Id. at 153-54 . “[N]o single factor is wholly determinative because the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” Quintero, 162 N.H. at 533 (quotations and citation omitted). *721 The defendant argues that King should be overruled “in light of the legal developments surrounding identification evidence.” He notes that we considered the opinions of other courts in King , but counters that “many courts have held that Biggers applies to in-court identifications” and asserts that, “[o]f the federal circuit courts and state supreme courts that appear to 2011Although “[t]hese factors guide our judgment, ... no single factor is wholly determinative,” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 154 (2008), because “the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” State v. Ramos, 149 N.H. 118, 127 (2003) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2011The stability of the law does not require the continuance of recognized error.” Miller, 155 N.H. at 251 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dovergreen1 sentence2002The stability of the law does not require the continuance of recognized error.” Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 544 (1979) (citations, brackets and quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. King
green
1 sentence2014King, 156 N.H. at 377 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Smith v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.
green
2 sentences2011While I agree that the four factors are appropriate considerations, and also agree, as the majority acknowledges, that “no single factor is wholly determinative . . . because the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed,” ante at 534 (quotations omitted), I deem it equally important to point out that we have never indicated these four are the only factors to be considered 1 More than eighty years ago, in Smith v. Twin State Gas & Electric Company, 83 N.H. 439 (1928), Justice Allen eloquently set forth the guiding principles that have properly govern 2011While I agree that the four factors are appropriate considerations, and also agree, as the majority acknowledges, that “no single factor is wholly determinative . . . because the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed,” ante at 534 (quotations omitted), I deem it equally important to point out that we have never indicated these four are the only factors to be considered 1 More than eighty years ago, in Smith v. Twin State Gas & Electric Company, 83 N.H. 439 (1928), Justice Allen eloquently set forth the guiding principles that have properly govern | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Matarese v. New Hampshire Municipal Ass'n Property-Liability Insurance Trust, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Moreover, while “the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed” because “[t]he stability of the law does not require the continuance of recognized error,” id. (quotation omitted), selective prospectivity of new rules “would only compound the challenge to the stabilizing purpose of precedent posed in the first instance by the very development of ‘new’ rules.” James B. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2003Beam Distilling Co., 501 U.S. at 543 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |