Anderson v. Commonwealth Oil & Refining Co.

I am not unmindful of the potency and general usefulness of the rule of stare decisis, that a judicial *317principle repeatedly declared should be followed until the legislature corrects or changes it. This is especially true when time has crystallized this rule into well-established law. Yet this court has repeatedly emancipated itself from the bondage of a prior fallacious ruling or precedent. We gave a typical example of this not long ago, in Adkinson v. Noonan, 110 Kan. 335, 203 Pac. 694, where an important provision of the state constitution came up for reexamination, and in which the…