HomeMy WebLinkAbout0073 i
to the community than can possibly result from disregarding stare ;
devises in a particular case. Obviously, a precedent must be deviated
from where it is inconsistent with provisions of the Constitution.
See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 Sup. Ct. 792 (1963); Stein
v. Darby, 126 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); 20 AmJur 2d, Courts,
X184, I8.6, 187 (Supplement 1979).
"The law is not static. It must keep pace with changes
in our society, for the Doctrine of Stare Decisis is not an iron mold
which can never be changed." See Cates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40, (Fla.
Sun. 1971).
The law has been molded and changed and brought up to
date in many a case. Such a trend must constantly continue to be re-
examined and re-examined. A Judge has an absolute duty to re-examine
a ctuestion where justice demands it. Legal precedent or statutory
law which seems contrary to reason must be examined without fear and
revised without reluctance rather than to have the character of our
law impaired and the beauty and harmony of the system destroyed by
the perpetuity of error. Sloods v. Lancet, 102 N.E. 2d 991, 27 ALR 2d
1250 (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals, 1951) "When reasons for the law fail, the
law should fail." Cottrell v. Amerkan, 35 So.2d 383 (Fla. Sup. 1948).
Justice Moremen, in writing for the majority in Haney
v. City of Lexington, 386 S.W. 2d 738, 10 AL'_t 3d 1362 (Kentucky Court
of Appeals, 1964)., pointed out that "The reason the Courts have
denied their logical impulses and have continued to enforce an unfair
rule of.law is because they have been nurtured and sustained by another
ancient and firmly fixed doctrine, that is, Stare Decisis et non ctuieta
movere to adhere to precedence and not to unsettle things which are
established. But when established things are no longer secure in a
fast changing world, the Courts should re-examine the precedence and
determine if they provide a proper stan~?ing under present conditions."
In the case at bar, this Court is., in fact, re-examining such prece-
dence to determine whether they provide a proper sta~ndinq under present
conditions.
• In the case of a stillborn, a majority of states that
-3-
. aoaK~ rw~E~