stare decisis doctrine in Alabama

2013The Legislature has acquiesced in the hold ing of [Shelton and Jones ] and to overrule th[ose] case[s] now would be to disregard the doctrine of stare decisis.” Hexcel Decatur, Inc. v. Vickers, 908 So.2d 237, 240-41 (Ala.2005).

2008Admittedly, we stated in Hexcel Decatur, Inc. v. Vickers, 908 So.2d 237, 241 (Ala.2005), that "[w]hen revisiting this Court's interpretation of a statute, we will afford greater deference to the doctrine of stare decisis than we would if asked to revisit an interpretation of a constitutional provision." Nonetheless, this Court on a number of occasions has felt obliged to correct its earlier statutory construction, including Burke, supra. For example, in Foremost Insurance Co. v. Parham, 693 So.2d 409 (Ala.1997), one of the issues *306 presented was when a fraud cause of action "accrued" under

2015As this Court recognized in Exxon Corp. v. Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 859 So.2d 1096, 1102 (Ala.2002) (quoting Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 215 Ala. 334, 340, 110 So. 574, 580 (1925) (Somerville, J., dissenting)), the doctrine of stare decisis “ 'is the only thing that gives form, and consistency, and stability to the body of the law.

2015As this Court recognized in Exxon Corp. v. Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 859 So.2d 1096, 1102 (Ala.2002) (quoting Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 215 Ala. 334, 340, 110 So. 574, 580 (1925) (Somerville, J., dissenting)), the doctrine of stare decisis “ 'is the only thing that gives form, and consistency, and stability to the body of the law.

2012With respect to the application of the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court has employed the following test from Ex parte First Alabama Bank, 883 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Ala.2003): “Justice Houston, writing specially in Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor, 541 So.2d 1081 (Ala.1989), embraced a useful standard for weighing the need for change against the advantages of settled principles of law under the doctrine of stare decisis.

2008In Ex parte First Alabama Bank, 883 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Ala.2003), we stated: “Justice Houston, writing specially in Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor, 541 So.2d 1081 (Ala.1989), embraced a useful standard for weighing the need for change against the advantages of settled principles of law under the doctrine of stare decisis.

2007Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc. , 718 So.2d 33 , 42 (Ala. 1998) (Lyons, J., concurring specially) (citing Gwin, White Prince, Inc. v. Henneford , 305 U.S. 434 , 454-55 , 59 S.Ct. 325 , 83 L.Ed. 272 (1939) (Black, J., dissenting)).

2007Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc., 718 So.2d 33, 42 (Ala.1998) (Lyons, J., concurring specially) (citing Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 454-55 , 59 S.Ct. 325 , 83 L.Ed. 272 (1939) (Black, J., dissenting)).

2015However, our courts have also made clear that the doctrine of stare decisis ‘does not apply to administrative decisions.’ Brookwood Health Serv., 936 So.2d at 536 ; see also Mobile County Gas Dist., 284 Ala. at 671 , 227 So.2d at 571 .

2015However, our courts have also made clear that the doctrine of stare decisis ‘does not apply to administrative decisions.’ Brookwood Health Serv., 936 So.2d at 536 ; see also Mobile County Gas Dist., 284 Ala. at 671 , 227 So.2d at 571 .

2015As this Court recognized in Exxon Corp. v. Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 859 So.2d 1096, 1102 (Ala.2002) (quoting Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 215 Ala. 334, 340, 110 So. 574, 580 (1925) (Somerville, J., dissenting)), the doctrine of stare decisis “ 'is the only thing that gives form, and consistency, and stability to the body of the law.

2006Its structural foundations, at least, ought not to be changed except for the weightiest reasons.’” Exxon Corp. v. Department of Conservation & Natural Res., 859 So.2d 1096, 1102 (Ala.2002) (quoting Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 215 Ala. 334, 340 , 110 So. 574, 580 (1925) (Somerville, J., dissenting)).

2010See Ex parte Marek, 556 So.2d 375, 382 (Ala.1989) (doctrine of stare deci-sis does not render the courts helpless to correct their past errors); Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392, 404 (Ala.2000) (plurality decision) (“We cannot, in blind obedience to the doctrine of stare decisis, continue to accept an expansive application of caselaw characterizing as a discretionary function conduct remote from the execution of governmental policy; to do so would perpetuate an erroneous construction of the Constitution.”); Marsh v. Green, 782 So.2d 223, 232 (Ala.2000) (“[W]hen the Constitution is misinterprete

2007Application of the Cranman Rule The main opinion in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392, 404-05 (Ala.2000), states as follows: “We cannot, in blind obedience to the doctrine of stare decisis, continue to accept an expansive application of caselaw characterizing as a discretionary function conduct remote from the execution of governmental policy; to do so would perpetuate an erroneous construction of the Constitution.

2005However, in the same case, our Supreme Court quoted WOKO, Inc. v. FCC, 153 F.2d 623, 631 (D.C.Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223 , 67 S.Ct. 213 , 91 L.Ed. 204 (1946), [3] for the proposition that the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to administrative decisions. 284 Ala. at 671 , 227 So.2d at 571 ; accord, Ex parte Shelby Med.

2005However, in the same case, our Supreme Court quoted WOKO, Inc. v. FCC, 153 F.2d 623, 631 (D.C.Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223 , 67 S.Ct. 213 , 91 L.Ed. 204 (1946), 3 for the proposition that the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to administrative decisions. 284 Ala. at 671 , 227 So.2d at 571 ; accord, Ex parte Shelby Med.

2026On the other hand, in Ex parte City of Orange Beach, [Ms. SC-2024- 0526, Apr. 4, 2025] ____ So. 3d ____, ____ (Ala. 2025), our Court explained that, when we are asked to overrule precedent that was allegedly decided incorrectly, two "competing interests" come into play: (1) this Court's "duty to correct its prior mistakes" and (2) the doctrine of stare decisis, "which [compels] respect for prior precedent, even prior precedent that was decided incorrectly, so as to provide stability in the law." We also explained that " '[o]verruling precedent is never a small matter' … even though that preced

2026On the other hand, in Ex parte City of Orange Beach, [Ms. SC-2024- 0526, Apr. 4, 2025] ____ So. 3d ____, ____ (Ala. 2025), our Court explained that, when we are asked to overrule precedent that was allegedly decided incorrectly, two "competing interests" come into play: (1) this Court's "duty to correct its prior mistakes" and (2) the doctrine of stare decisis, "which [compels] respect for prior precedent, even prior precedent that was decided incorrectly, so as to provide stability in the law." We also explained that " '[o]verruling precedent is never a small matter' … even though that preced

2005Ctr., Inc., 564 So.2d 63, 68 (Ala.1990) ("Because there is need for flexibility in administrative decisionmaking, the doctrine of stare decisis generally does not bind administrative agencies to their prior decisions.").

2005Ctr., Inc., 564 So.2d 63, 68 (Ala.1990) (“Because there is need for flexibility in administrative decisionmaking, the doctrine of stare decisis generally does not bind administrative agencies to their prior decisions.”).

1984If this were not so, we must succumb to a rule that a judge should let others "`long dead and unaware of the problems of the age in which he lives, do his thinking for him.'" Lewis v. Wolf , 122 Ariz. 567 at 568, 596 P.2d 705 , 706 (1979) (quoting Mr. Justice Douglas, Stare Decisis , 49 Colum.L.Rev. 735, 736 (1949)).

1984If this were not so, we must succumb to a rule that a judge should let others "`long dead and unaware of the problems of the age in which he lives, do his thinking for him.'" Lewis v. Wolf , 122 Ariz. 567 at 568, 596 P.2d 705 , 706 (1979) (quoting Mr. Justice Douglas, Stare Decisis , 49 Colum.L.Rev. 735, 736 (1949)).

2012With respect to the application of the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court has employed the following test from Ex parte First Alabama Bank, 883 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Ala.2003): “Justice Houston, writing specially in Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor, 541 So.2d 1081 (Ala.1989), embraced a useful standard for weighing the need for change against the advantages of settled principles of law under the doctrine of stare decisis.

2008In Ex parte First Alabama Bank, 883 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Ala.2003), we stated: “Justice Houston, writing specially in Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor, 541 So.2d 1081 (Ala.1989), embraced a useful standard for weighing the need for change against the advantages of settled principles of law under the doctrine of stare decisis.

2006Co., 962 So.2d 242, 247 (Ala.2006): “This Court has great respect for the doctrine of stare decisis; at the same time, ‘we should not blindly continue to apply a rule of law that does not accord with what is right and just.’ Ex parte State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 764 So.2d 543, 545 (Ala.2000). “ ‘ “The doctrine of stare decisis tends to produce certainty in our law, but it is important to realize that certainty per se is but a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

2005Co. , 764 So.2d 543 (Ala. 2000) (discussing the doctrine of stare decisis).

2010See Ex parte Marek, 556 So.2d 375, 382 (Ala.1989) (doctrine of stare deci-sis does not render the courts helpless to correct their past errors); Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392, 404 (Ala.2000) (plurality decision) (“We cannot, in blind obedience to the doctrine of stare decisis, continue to accept an expansive application of caselaw characterizing as a discretionary function conduct remote from the execution of governmental policy; to do so would perpetuate an erroneous construction of the Constitution.”); Marsh v. Green, 782 So.2d 223, 232 (Ala.2000) (“[W]hen the Constitution is misinterprete

2010See Ex parte Marek, 556 So.2d 375, 382 (Ala.1989) (doctrine of stare deci-sis does not render the courts helpless to correct their past errors); Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392, 404 (Ala.2000) (plurality decision) (“We cannot, in blind obedience to the doctrine of stare decisis, continue to accept an expansive application of caselaw characterizing as a discretionary function conduct remote from the execution of governmental policy; to do so would perpetuate an erroneous construction of the Constitution.”); Marsh v. Green, 782 So.2d 223, 232 (Ala.2000) (“[W]hen the Constitution is misinterprete