Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Kentucky opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hilen v. Haysgreen2 sentences2019It is often citied that “the doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ancient Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics § 5.05 (2007) (similar language to 1994 version). 7 fallacy.” Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713, 717 (Ky. 1984). 2016However, as this Court has wisely concluded in the past, "the doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ancient fallacy." Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713, 717 (Ky. 1984). | 4 | 6 |
Morrow v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2016The escape hatch is necessary because, while judicial economy, stability, and legitimacy—values promoted by the stare decisis principle—are all of key importance, no less important is the assurance that the law not "bell shackled to past folly." (Cunningham, J., dissenting) See also, Allen v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.3d 451 (Ky. 2013) ("[T]he doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us 27 to the sanctification of . . . fallacy.") (quoting Morrow v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 558, 559 (Ky. 2002)). 2016The escape hatch is necessary because, while judicial economy, stability, and legitimacy — values promoted by the stare deci-sis principle — are all of key importance, no less important is the assurance that the law not “be[ ] shackled to past folly.” (Cunningham, J., dissenting) See also, Allen v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.3d 451 (Ky.2013) (“’[T]he doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ... fallacy.”) (quoting Morrow v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 558, 559 (Ky.2002)). | 2 | 2 |
Beaumont v. Zerugreen1 sentence2023See Beaumont v. Zeru, 460 S.W.3d 904, 909 (Ky. 2015) (“The doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ancient or relatively recent fallacy.”) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2016The escape hatch is necessary because, while judicial economy, stability, and legitimacy—values promoted by the stare decisis principle—are all of key importance, no less important is the assurance that the law not "bell shackled to past folly." (Cunningham, J., dissenting) See also, Allen v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.3d 451 (Ky. 2013) ("[T]he doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us 27 to the sanctification of . . . fallacy.") (quoting Morrow v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 558, 559 (Ky. 2002)). 2016The escape hatch is necessary because, while judicial economy, stability, and legitimacy — values promoted by the stare deci-sis principle — are all of key importance, no less important is the assurance that the law not “be[ ] shackled to past folly.” (Cunningham, J., dissenting) See also, Allen v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.3d 451 (Ky.2013) (“’[T]he doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ... fallacy.”) (quoting Morrow v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 558, 559 (Ky.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Matheney v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2013And while the author of this decision joined the majority in that case, we are also mindful that “the doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ancient or relatively recent fallacy.” Matheney v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 599, 604 (Ky.2006) (quoting Morrow v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 558, 559 (Ky.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
D & W AUTO SUPPLY v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences1993But the doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ancient fallacy." Id. at 717 . "[The principle] is not inflexible, nor is it of such a nature as to require perpetuation of error or illogic." D & W Auto Supply v. Department of Revenue, Ky., 602 S.W.2d 420, 424 (1980). 1993But the doctrine of stare decisis does not commit us to the sanctification of ancient fallacy.” Id. at 717 . “[The principle] is not inflexible, nor is it of such a nature as to require perpetuation of error or illogic.” D & W Auto Supply v. Department of Revenue, Ky., 602 S.W.2d 420, 424 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goetzman v. Wichern
green
2 sentences2000In Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742 (Iowa 1983), the Supreme Court of Iowa observed: `(S)tare decisis does not preclude the change. 2000In Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742 (Iowa 1983), the Supreme Court of Iowa observed: ‘(S)tare decisis does not preclude the change. | 2 | 1984–2000 |
Martin v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2023In fact, Martin I held “the plain error test of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), [is] the federal counterpart of RCr 10.26.” 207 S.W.3d at 3 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |