Court Opinion

ID: 9741181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:50:56.859407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.729187
License: Public Domain

Cassel, D.J.,
concurring.
The decision in this case is controlled by the decision in State v. Christner, post p. 549, 557 N.W.2d 707 (1997), which follows from the decision in Smith v. State, 248 Neb. 360, 535 N.W.2d 694 (1995).
The principle of stare decisis requires adherence to past decisions. As Justice Brandéis stated:
Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. . . . This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation.
Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406, 52 S. Ct. 443, 76 L. Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
I am constrained to follow the principles previously established by the majority in Christner and in Smith. Although I *540might have decided those cases differently, the rule of law demands adherence to settled principles. This is particularly true where the Legislature can, and indeed has chosen to, provide for a different result in future cases. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the court.