Court Opinion

ID: 9560853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:57:40.410316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:15.560714
License: Public Domain

Lockett, J.,
dissenting: The doctrine of stare decisis is not a rule requiring absolute adherence to precedent. The rule of stare decisis does allow courts some flexibility in adjusting the need for stability in the law where public policy requires a change or there is a need for progress in the law. Generally, a court must resolve the issue in favor of following precedent where reliance has been placed upon the existing rule of law.
In his concurring opinion in State v. McQuillen, 236 Kan. 161, 689 P.2d 822 (1984), Justice Herd noted and explained why the rule of precedent or stare decisis is based on sound reasoning. He quoted Von Moschzisker, Stare Decisis, Res Judicata and Other Selected Essays 2 (1929), which stated:
“ ‘[T]he rule of stare decisis is not a contrivance to hamper the judge in administering justice, but is intended to advance the general usefulness of the law and thus benefit the greatest number. It expedites the work of the courts by preventing the constant reconsideration of settled questions; it enables lawyers to advise their clients with a reasonable degree of certainty and safety; it assures individuals that, in so far as they act on authoritative rules of conduct, their contract and other rights will be protected in the courts; and, finally, it makes for equality of treatment of all men before the law and lends stability to the judicial arm of government.’ ” 236 Kan. at 175.
Tripp’s statement,
“[W]hen an application for life insurance is made and the company receives the initial premium and issues a receipt therefor, a policy of temporary insurance is created and said policy of temporary insurance continues in effect until the insurance company declines the application, notifies the insured, and returns the premium, notwithstanding the provisions of the application and the receipt to the contrary,”
has been the law of this State for approximately 20 years. Tripp v. The Reliable Life Insurance Co., 210 Kan. 33, 38, 499 P.2d 1155 (1972). During those 20 years thousands of applications for insurance have been accepted by insurance companies. Neither the insurance companies nor the Commissioner of Insurance have requested the Kansas Legislature to overturn Tripp during those 20 years.
*246The original decision of this court in Tripp may have been wrong, but that decision has been relied on for 20 years. The majority admits there is no public policy necessity for overturning Tripp. The majority determined Tripp must be overturned merely because if the members of the majority had been on the court 20 years ago they would have decided Tripp differently. In reversing Tripp, the majority of this court fails to consider application of the doctrine of stare decisis. It does not balance the good and the bad which will result from overruling a prior case when not required by a matter of public policy or a need for progress in the law.
The majority’s action is wrong and its effect is an example of why the doctrine of stare decisis should be followed. By overruling Tripp, the majority announces that it is willing to reconsider settled questions of law when not required to do so when it collectively determines that a prior decision of this court is not the decision that the present majority would have made.
Allegrucci and Abbott, JJ., join in the foregoing dissenting opinion.