2010 (September Term)
United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply when a statute, executive order, or other basis for a decision changes).
(stare decisis cannot possibly be controlling when the decision in question has been proved manifestly erroneous and its underpinnings eroded by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court).
2008 (Transition)
(precedent can be overruled
if changes in
society or in the law dictate that the values served by stare
decisis yield in favor of a greater objective).
(where a judicial decision is
based on public
policy and that policy has changed, the doctrine of stare decisis does
not
prohibit an appellate court from revisiting that decision).
2003
United
States v. Rorie, 58 MJ 399 (CAAF is not unmindful
of the
importance that the doctrine of stare decisis plays in its
decision-making; the
doctrine of stare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes
the
evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal
principles,
fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual
and
perceived integrity of the judicial process).
(a decision to alter a policy of abatement ab initio does not fall
into any
of the categories identified as important areas within which to
preserve
precedent under stare decisis; the issue is not one of constitutional
or
statutory interpretation, nor has it been presented with any reliance
interests
of appellant).
(stare decisis is a principle of decision-making, not a rule, and
need not
be applied when the precedent at issue is unworkable or badly reasoned;
admittedly, the current policy of abatement cannot be considered
unworkable;
however, CAAF believes that the weight of reason supports a change in
the
rule).
(CAAF may alter its policy in regard to abatement ab initio without
being constrained
by stare decisis; CAAF is less constrained by the doctrine of stare
decisis in
this instance because it is determining a matter of court policy rather
than
contemplating a change in the law or a change impacting upon an
articulable
right of an appellant).