Stare decisis. To abide or adhere to decided cases.
2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5.

-Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856

…we have a practice of relying upon judicial precedent (so-called stare decisis), which is no less extensive post-Holmes than pre-Holmes. That made sense in a legal system that regarded judicial opinions as “evidence” of what “the law” is. It makes no sense in a legal system that regards the judicial opinion itself as “the law,” any more than it would make sense to bind today’s legislature to the laws adopted in the past.

-Antonin Scalia

I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine.

-Antonin Scalia

“The Court’s reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the ‘central holding.’ It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version.”

-Antonin Scalia

[Stare decisis] is a maxim among … lawyers, that whatever has been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind.

— Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels

Doesn’t it feel sorta wrong to use one search engine to find another?