Legal Definitions - stare decisis et non quieta movere

Stare decisis et non quieta movere is a Latin legal maxim that translates to "to stand by things decided, and not to disturb settled points." It represents the fundamental principle that courts should generally adhere to precedents—prior judicial decisions—when ruling on similar cases. This promotes predictability, fairness, and stability in the legal system by ensuring that the law is applied consistently over time and that individuals can reasonably expect how legal issues will be resolved. It is the fuller expression of the more commonly known term, stare decisis.

Here are some examples illustrating this principle:

• Contract Law Interpretation: Imagine a long-standing legal interpretation in a particular jurisdiction that a valid contract requires an offer, acceptance, and "consideration" (something of value exchanged between parties). If a new case comes before a court involving a dispute over whether a contract was formed, the court will almost certainly apply this established three-part test, rather than inventing a new standard or questioning the validity of these core elements. The court is "standing by things decided" regarding the foundational elements of a contract, ensuring consistency in how such agreements are legally evaluated.

• Property Rights: Consider the legal principle that a property owner has the right to exclude others from their land. This principle has been affirmed in countless cases over centuries. If a landowner sues someone for trespassing, a court will not typically re-evaluate whether landowners *should* have the right to exclude; instead, it will apply the established legal precedent, focusing on whether the trespass occurred according to the settled definition. Here, the court is "not disturbing settled points" about fundamental property rights, relying on generations of judicial decisions to resolve the current dispute efficiently and predictably.

• Interpretation of a State Statute: Suppose a state's highest court has consistently ruled for decades that a particular state statute regarding environmental protection is constitutional, having thoroughly analyzed its alignment with the state's constitution. When a new challenge to the same statute arises, a lower court, and even the state's highest court itself, will typically uphold its previous ruling. They will do so unless there is a compelling reason, such as a significant change in societal understanding, new scientific evidence, or a clear demonstration that the prior decision was fundamentally flawed. This demonstrates the principle by showing that courts prefer to "stand by things decided" even in constitutional matters, providing stability and certainty regarding the legality of laws that affect many people.