Court Opinion

ID: 9844642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:05:56.550763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:39.546377
License: Public Domain

Price, J.,
dissenting: Ever since 1917 the rule announced in Murrell v. Crawford, 102 Kan. 118, 169 Pac. 561, has been the law of this state, and I see no sound or compelling reason why it should now be discarded. And neither do I agree that Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 219 P. 2d 673, overruled it — impliedly or otherwise.
*391The application of the doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the maintenance of a well-ordered system of jurisprudence, making for certainty and stability in the law. Attorneys should be able to advise their clients — and trial courts should be able to adjudicate controversies — in reliance on past decisions of this court rather than be subjected to the uncertainties brought about by changes in personnel of the court.
I would affirm the judgment.
Parker, C. J., concurs in the foregoing dissent.