stare decisis doctrine in Kansas

2024The doctrine of stare decisis "instructs that points of law established by a court are generally followed by the same court and courts of lower rank in later cases in which the same legal issue is raised." Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc., 303 Kan. 358, 362-63 , 361 P.3d 504 (2015).

2024The doctrine of stare decisis "instructs that points of law established by a court are generally followed by the same court and courts of lower rank in later cases in which the same legal issue is raised." Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc., 303 Kan. 358, 362-63 , 361 P.3d 504 (2015).

2024"The doctrine of stare decisis provides that 'points of law established by a court are generally followed by the same court and courts of lower rank in later cases in which the same legal issue is raised.'" State v. Clark, 313 Kan. 556 , 565, 486 P.3d 591 (2021).

2022We recognize "[t]he doctrine of stare decisis provides that 'points of law established by a court are generally followed by the same court and courts of lower rank in later cases in which the same legal issue is raised.'" State v. Clark, 313 Kan. 556 , 565, 486 P.3d 591 (2021).

2018Under the doctrine of stare decisis, "points of law established by a court are generally followed by the same court and courts of lower rank in later cases in which the same legal issue is raised." State v. Spencer Gifts , 304 Kan. 755 , 766, 374 P.3d 680 (2016).

2018Under the doctrine of stare decisis, "points of law established by a court are generally followed by the same court and courts of lower rank in later cases in which the same legal issue is raised." State v. Spencer Gifts , 304 Kan. 755 , 766, 374 P.3d 680 (2016).

2024Indeed, "'this court endeavors to adhere to the principle unless clearly convinced 4 a rule of law established in its earlier cases "'was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and that more good than harm will come by departing from precedent.'" [Citations omitted.]'" State v. Clark, 313 Kan. 556 , 565, 486 P.3d 591 (2021) (quoting State v. Hambright, 310 Kan. 408 , 416, 447 P.3d 972 [2019]).

2021Because adherence to precedent promotes the stability of our legal system, "we do not lightly disapprove of precedent." State v. Spencer Gifts, 304 Kan. 755, 766 , 374 P.3d 680 (2016). 12 "While 'stare decisis is not an inexorable command,' this court endeavors to adhere to the principle unless clearly convinced a rule of law established in its earlier cases '"was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and that more good than harm will come by departing from precedent."' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Hambright, 310 Kan. 408 , 416, 447 P.3d 972 (2019).

2018This court has found the doctrine of stare decisis to be "particularly compelling in cases where ... the legislature is free to alter a statute in response to court precedent with which it disagrees but declines to do so." Quested , 302 Kan. at 278 , 352 P.3d 553 .

2018This court has found the doctrine of stare decisis to be "particularly compelling in cases where ... the legislature is free to alter a statute in response to court precedent with which it disagrees but declines to do so." Quested , 302 Kan. at 278 , 352 P.3d 553 .

1994State v. Mellenberger, 163 Or. 233 , 95 P.2d 709, 719, 720 .” An excellent summary of Kansas case law relative to the doctrine of stare decisis is contained in Chief Justice Schroeder’s dissent in Bowers v. Ottenad, 240 Kan. 208, 226-27 , 729 P.2d 1103 (1986), wherein he stated: “Few decisions have been written elaborating on the doctrine of stare decisis because it has been so basic in the teaching of the law throughout the centuries.

1994State v. Mellenberger, 163 Or. 233 , 95 P.2d 709, 719, 720 .” An excellent summary of Kansas case law relative to the doctrine of stare decisis is contained in Chief Justice Schroeder’s dissent in Bowers v. Ottenad, 240 Kan. 208, 226-27 , 729 P.2d 1103 (1986), wherein he stated: “Few decisions have been written elaborating on the doctrine of stare decisis because it has been so basic in the teaching of the law throughout the centuries.

1994“Addressing the doctrine of stare decisis, Justice Alex Fromme, writing for the court in Guffy v. Guffy, 230 Kan. 89, 96-97 , 631 P.2d 646 (1981), said: ‘It is not always easy to determine the proper ambit of the court’s authority on an issue of the present kind.

1994“Addressing the doctrine of stare decisis, Justice Alex Fromme, writing for the court in Guffy v. Guffy, 230 Kan. 89, 96-97 , 631 P.2d 646 (1981), said: ‘It is not always easy to determine the proper ambit of the court’s authority on an issue of the present kind.

2024"Stare decisis—while not a 'rigid inevitability'—serves as a 'prudent governor on the pace of legal change.'" McCullough v. Wilson, 308 Kan. 1025 , 1035, 426 P.3d 494 (2018).

2024Second, it concluded "the nature of the inquiry itself lends support to the conclusion that 'voluntariness' is a legal question meriting independent consideration." 474 U.S. at 115 .

2024"Although we are not inextricably bound by our own precedent, '[w]e do not overrule precedent lightly and must give full consideration to the doctrine of stare decisis.'" State v. Uk, 311 Kan. 393 , 399, 461 P.3d 32 (2020) (quoting State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 107, 378 P.3d 1060 [2016]).

2024"Although we are not inextricably bound by our own precedent, '[w]e do not overrule precedent lightly and must give full consideration to the doctrine of stare decisis.'" State v. Uk, 311 Kan. 393 , 399, 461 P.3d 32 (2020) (quoting State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 107, 378 P.3d 1060 [2016]).

2022In In re N.A.C., we held that post-termination orders are not appealable under K.S.A. 38-2273(a), and we reaffirm that holding today under the doctrine of stare decisis. 299 Kan. 1100 , Syl. ¶ 6.

2022Yet, "'[w]e do not overrule precedent lightly and must give full consideration to the doctrine of stare decisis.'" City of Kingman v. Ary, 312 Kan. 408 , 416, 475 P.3d 1240 (2020).

2022Cf. In re Estate of Lentz, 312 Kan. 490 , 506, 476 P.3d 1151 (2020) (Luckert, C.J., concurring) ("The concept that a court consider jurisdiction as an antecedent to a merits determination has a practical impact in a system driven by stare decisis principles because even dicta or obiter dictum 'should not be lightly disregarded' by lower courts.").

2022"The doctrine of stare decisis provides that 'points of law established by a court are generally followed by the same court and courts of lower rank in later cases in which the same legal issue is raised.'" State v. Clark, 313 Kan. 556 , 565, 486 P.3d 591 (2021) (quoting Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc., 303 Kan. 358, 362-63 , 361 P.3d 504 [2015]). "'"The application of stare decisis ensures stability and continuity— demonstrating a continuing legitimacy of judicial review."'" State v. Davidson, 314 Kan. 88 , 93, 495 P.3d 9 (2021).

2021Adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis, we follow State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. 926, 929-30 , 869 P.2d 729 (1994), which held K.S.A. 60-2101 and K.S.A. 22-3504 vest appellate courts with jurisdiction to hear a State's appeal challenging the legality of a sentence.

2021Adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis, we follow State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. 926, 929-30 , 869 P.2d 729 (1994), which held K.S.A. 60-2101 and K.S.A. 22-3504 vest appellate courts with jurisdiction to hear a State's appeal challenging the legality of a sentence.

2017Additionally, in my role as a judge assigned to hear this case, I am mindful of Chief Justice McFarland's admonition: "While fidelity to the doctrine of stare decisis is not an 'inexorable command,' we should be highly skeptical of reversing an earlier decision where nothing has changed except the composition of the court." (Emphasis 7 added.) State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 577 , 102 P.3d 445 (2004) (McFarland, C.J., dissenting), rev'd and remanded on other grounds 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 , 165 L.

2017Additionally, in my role as a judge assigned to hear this case, I am mindful of Chief Justice McFarland's admonition: "While fidelity to the doctrine of stare decisis is not an 'inexorable command,' we should be highly skeptical of reversing an earlier decision where nothing has changed except the composition of the court." (Emphasis 7 added.) State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 577 , 102 P.3d 445 (2004) (McFarland, C.J., dissenting), rev'd and remanded on other grounds 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 , 165 L.

2017Ed. 2d 429 (2006), vacated in part on other grounds on remand 282 Kan. 38 , 102 P.3d 445 (2006).

2017Additionally, in my role as a judge assigned to hear this case, I am mindful of Chief Justice McFarland's admonition: "While fidelity to the doctrine of stare decisis is not an 'inexorable command,' we should be highly skeptical of reversing an earlier decision where nothing has changed except the composition of the court." (Emphasis 7 added.) State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 577 , 102 P.3d 445 (2004) (McFarland, C.J., dissenting), rev'd and remanded on other grounds 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 , 165 L.

2017Additionally, in my role as a judge assigned to hear this case, I am mindful of Chief Justice McFarland's admonition: "While fidelity to the doctrine of stare decisis is not an 'inexorable command,' we should be highly skeptical of reversing an earlier decision where nothing has changed except the composition of the court." (Emphasis 7 added.) State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 577 , 102 P.3d 445 (2004) (McFarland, C.J., dissenting), rev'd and remanded on other grounds 548 U.S. 163 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 , 165 L.

2015Certainly, even if we were bound by a Court of Appeals decision, which we are not, “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis [would] not compel us to perpetuate an incorrect analysis of a statute enacted by the legislature.” Hall v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 286 Kan. 777, 787 , 189 P.3d 508 (2008).

2015Certainly, even if we were bound by a Court of Appeals decision, which we are not, “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis [would] not compel us to perpetuate an incorrect analysis of a statute enacted by the legislature.” Hall v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 286 Kan. 777, 787 , 189 P.3d 508 (2008).

2014A court of last resort will follow that rule of law unless clearly convinced it was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and that more good than harm will come by departing from precedent.” Miller v. Johnson, 295 Kan. 636, 653 , 289 P.3d 1098 (2012) (citing Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92, 112 , 223 P.3d 786 [2010]).

2014A court of last resort will follow that rule of law unless clearly convinced it was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and that more good than harm will come by departing from precedent.” Miller v. Johnson, 295 Kan. 636, 653 , 289 P.3d 1098 (2012) (citing Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92, 112 , 223 P.3d 786 [2010]).