BobTHJ wrote:
#1 seems the most logical, and yet it makes a valid case for the elimination of stare decisis. Who wants to review the past X years of case history to determine if a fragment of a judgment somewhere might have bearing on a present-day situation? There should be some sort of expiration on past judgments.
The last paragraph of Rule 591 is already limited to SHOULD. I think that's limitation enough, esp. with the CotC DB allowing statements to be searched by keyword (going back 7 years; I have another 7 years in offline files, though they get increasingly fragmentary as you go back, and it's been quite a while since I've spent any time adding them to the DB).
