There is no rule of stare decisis in international law.

I could barely keep up my train of thought on stare decisis.

Will you respect the court's decision in Baker based upon stare decisis?

Stare decisis has come to us as a most sacred rule of law.

There is much discussion about the virtue of using stare decisis.

Whether the court of today would consider the decision as "stare decisis," or settled law, may be up in the air.

Let us have no more talk about stare decisis .

For example, do not say: "Stare decisis is an idea of the courts."

True, there is stare decisis, the principle that they shouldn't change their minds too often.

"Stare decisis" is Latin for "to stand by things decided."

The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components.

A 5-to-4 majority invoked stare decisis in the Casey decision.

Under the common law, judicial opinions themselves have legal effect through the rule of stare decisis.

The ruling was consistent with the law, and the doctrine of stare decisis.

Prior to Bracton, there was little use of stare decisis.

"Stare decisis" is Latin translating as "let the decision stand."

The principle of stare decisis also applies in Malaysian law.

'Why did you bring up stare decisis in front of me?'

Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis.

I think they should adopt "stare decisis," Latin for "stand by that decided."

Rather say: "Stare decisis is a legal principle recognized as binding on the courts."

The Tribunal also notes that it is not bound by the principle of stare decisis.

Black based his dissent mainly on stare decisis basis.

Other, less important, reasons for the rule include: stare decisis, see Bain v.

Douglas did not highly value judicial consistency or stare decisis when deciding cases.