stare decisis doctrine in Florida

2024See Strand v. Escambia County, 992 So. 2d 150, 159 (Fla. 2008) ("[T]he 'doctrine of stare decisis, or the obligation of a court to abide by its own precedent, is grounded on the need for stability in the law and has been a fundamental tenet of Anglo–American jurisprudence for centuries.' " (quoting N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 637 (Fla. 2003))).

2024I use the term “anew” because the Florida Supreme Court’s refusal in Cable to recede from Benefield was grounded in reasoning based on the multi-factor stare decisis framework set out in North Florida Women’s Health & Counseling Services, Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2003).

2018In receding from the reasoning of Houck on these points, “we are mindful of the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis.” State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552, 554 (Fla. 1995).

2018In receding from the reasoning of Houck on these points, "we are mindful of the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis ." State v. Gray , 654 So.2d 552 , 554 (Fla. 1995).

2008We observed that the doctrine was memorialized by this Court a century and a half ago in Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107 (1858).

2005We therefore apply the doctrine of stare decisis, which "provides stability to the law and to the society governed by that law." State v. Gray , 654 So.2d 552 , 554 (Fla. 1995) (citing State v. Schopp , 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (Harding, J., dissenting)); see also Tyson v. Mattair , 8 Fla. 107 , 124 (1858) (noting that a commitment to precedent helps "to keep the scale of justice even and steady").

2013See Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1077 (Fla.2009); Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So.2d 850, 855 (Fla.2007); Dorsey v. State, 868 So.2d 1192, 1199 (Fla.2003) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis ... yields only upon a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or when there has been an error in legal analysis.”).

2009We recognize that the doctrine of stare decisis “counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been ‘a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis.’ ” Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc., 911 So.2d 1181, 1188 (Fla.2005) (quoting Dorsey v. State, 868 So.2d 1192, 1199 (Fla.2003)).

2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis.

2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) ("It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again *1109 in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion. . . ."). [2] Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis.

2026Cusick v. City of Neptune Beach, 765 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis applies a rule of law established in an earlier case only to a later case that involves a factual situation similar to that in the former.” (citing Forman v. Fla. Land Holding Corp., 102 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 1958)); cf. Pedroza v. State, 291 So. 3d 541 , 547 (Fla. 2020) (“A holding consists of those propositions along the chosen decisional path or paths of reasoning that (1) are actually decided, (2) are based upon the facts of the case, and (3) lead to the judgment.” (citation omitted))

2008Abiding by our precedent "is considered appropriate in most instances in order to produce consistency in the application of legal principles unless for some compelling reason it becomes appropriate to recede therefrom." Forman v. Fla. Land Holding Corp., 102 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla.1958).

2009“This Court adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis,” State v. J.P., 907 So.2d 1101, 1108 (Fla.2004), because the doctrine is important in “providing] stability to the law and to the society governed by that law.” State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995).

2009"This Court adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis," State v. J.P., 907 So.2d 1101, 1108 (Fla.2004), because the doctrine is important in "provid[ing] stability to the law and to the society governed by that law." State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995).

2000See In re Seaton's Estate, 154 Fla. 446 , 449, 18 So.2d 20, 22 (1944); Bunn [v. Bunn], *1141 311 So.2d [387] at 389 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1975)].

1996See In re Seaton's Estate, 154 Fla. 446, 449 , 18 So.2d 20, 22 (1944); Bunn, 311 So.2d at 389 .

2000See In re Seaton's Estate, 154 Fla. 446 , 449, 18 So.2d 20, 22 (1944); Bunn [v. Bunn], *1141 311 So.2d [387] at 389 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1975)].

1996See In re Seaton's Estate, 154 Fla. 446, 449 , 18 So.2d 20, 22 (1944); Bunn, 311 So.2d at 389 .

2026Standard of Review “Generally, this Court reviews a trial court’s admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Gartner v. State, 118 So. 3d 273 , 275–76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 107 (Fla. 2008) (additional citation omitted)). “[The lower court’s evidentiary] discretion is limited, however, by the rules of evidence and the doctrine of stare decisis . . . .” Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113, 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

2024See Kenner v. State, 208 So. 3d 271, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“A trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence is reviewed by an appellate court under an abuse of discretion standard.”); see also Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113, 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“[The lower court’s evidentiary] discretion is limited, however, by the rules of evidence and the doctrine of stare decisis, and a court abuses its discretion when it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.”).

2024OFR and the public can take heart that the “doctrine of stare decisis” prevails here, just as it does at the supreme court, which is to say it “bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, or where there has been an error in legal analysis.” Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901, 905 (Fla. 2002) (internal citation omitted).

2003See id.

2010See generally Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 919 , 130 S.Ct. 876 (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), and the proposition that under the doctrine of stare decisis, compelling interests may necessitate the preservation of prior precedent, as in contract and property cases).

2010See generally Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 919 , 130 S.Ct. 876 (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), and the proposition that under the doctrine of stare decisis, compelling interests may necessitate the preservation of prior precedent, as in contract and property cases).

2009We recognize that the doctrine of stare decisis “counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been ‘a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis.’ ” Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc., 911 So.2d 1181, 1188 (Fla.2005) (quoting Dorsey v. State, 868 So.2d 1192, 1199 (Fla.2003)).

2009We recognize that the doctrine of stare decisis "counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been `a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or . . . an error in legal analysis.'" Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc., 911 So.2d 1181, 1188 (Fla.2005) (quoting Dorsey v. State, 868 So.2d 1192, 1199 (Fla.2003)).

2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis.

2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) ("It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again *1109 in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion. . . ."). [2] Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis.

2004Cf. State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393, 399 (Utah 1994) (“[The] stare decisis effect of [the] case is substantially diminished by the fact that the legal point therein was decided without argument.”) (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 193 (1965)).

2004Cf. State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393, 399 (Utah 1994) ("[The] stare decisis effect of [the] case is substantially diminished by the fact that the legal point therein was decided without argument.") (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 193 (1965)).

1997Bd. v. Debose, 667 So.2d 447, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts are bound to adhere to the rulings of higher courts when considering similar issues even though the lower court might believe the law should be otherwise.”).

1996Putnam County School Board v. Debose, 667 So.2d 447, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts are bound to adhere to the rulings of higher courts when considering similar issues even though the lower court might believe the law should be otherwise.”); Wood v. Fraser, 677 So.2d 15, 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(allowing trial courts to deviate from stare decisis would result in uncertainty and unpredictability, and “[a]l-though they are free to express their disagreements with decisions of higher courts, trial courts are not free to disregard them in the adjudicatory p

2024See Strand v. Escambia County, 992 So. 2d 150, 159 (Fla. 2008) ("[T]he 'doctrine of stare decisis, or the obligation of a court to abide by its own precedent, is grounded on the need for stability in the law and has been a fundamental tenet of Anglo–American jurisprudence for centuries.' " (quoting N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 637 (Fla. 2003))).

2009In Strand v. Escambia County, 992 So.2d 150 (Fla.2008), we declined to recede from precedent because we concluded that the presumption in favor of stare decisis was strong.

2005We therefore apply the doctrine of stare decisis, which "provides stability to the law and to the society governed by that law." State v. Gray , 654 So.2d 552 , 554 (Fla. 1995) (citing State v. Schopp , 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (Harding, J., dissenting)); see also Tyson v. Mattair , 8 Fla. 107 , 124 (1858) (noting that a commitment to precedent helps "to keep the scale of justice even and steady").

2000See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1023 (Fla.1995) (Harding, J., dissenting) (" [S]tare decisis provides stability to the law and to the society governed by that law.").

2004See also Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla.1998) (applying the strict scrutiny standard in addressing the visitation rights of grandparents when a child's parent is deceased); J.A.S. v. State, 705 So.2d 1381 (Fla.1998) (applying the strict scrutiny standard in addressing a statutory rape law); Krischer v. McIver, 697 So.2d 97 (Fla.1997) (applying the strict scrutiny standard in addressing assisted suicide); Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1996) (applying the strict scrutiny standard in addressing the visitation rights of grandparents when a child’s parents are living together); B.B.

2004Thus, while the dissent may embrace the rational basis standard under the guise of a "concession of error," it is actually an abandonment of the strict scrutiny standard established by the Court's unanimous holdings in T.M. and J.P. [2] "The doctrine of stare decisis, or the obligation of a court to abide by its own precedent, is grounded on the need for stability in the law and has been a fundamental tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries." N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So.2d 612, 637 (Fla.2003). [3] See also Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla

1996See In re Seaton's Estate, 154 Fla. 446, 449 , 18 So.2d 20, 22 (1944); Bunn, 311 So.2d at 389 .

1976No Florida case has spoken directly to this issue, see Bunn v. Bunn, 311 So.2d 387, 389 (4th DCA Fla. 1975) ("Additionally, under the doctrine of stare decisis, an appellate court's decision on issues properly before it and decided in disposing of the case, are, until overruled by a subsequent case, binding as precedent on courts of lesser jurisdiction.") Courts in other jurisdictions have decided this issue.