I need someone to reply to this question

Stare decisis requires that a precedent set in one case must be applied equally to cases in which circumstances are similar (Harr, Hess & Orthmann, 2012).  The stare decisis doctrine is modeled after early English common law (Harr, et. al., 2012).  Stare decisis is important to follow for many reasons.  By following previously decided cases, it limits judicial discretion, allows potentially expensive constitutional cases to be resolved more cost effectively and less time consuming, and it allows our legal system to build upon itself by examining previous decisions to base their current decisions on (James, 2011).

 While stare decisis is a required doctrine that courts must follow, it should be a strict guideline, not a requirement.  While some case might be very similar, there will never be a case that is an exact replica of a previous one.  A decision might be appropriate in one case, might not be appropriate in another.  Stare decisis should be followed with the ability to slightly deviate from a previous cases decision if it makes sound sense to do so. 

A historical case where stare decisis was followed was Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.  Stare decisis was followed from the Roe v. Wade decision regarding a women’s right to have an abortion, to decide whether certain stipulations from Roe v. Wade were constitutional (Mitchell, 2011).  Some judicial discretion should have been used while ruling using the precedent set in Roe v. Wade to make it a unique case where the cases unique factors were taken into consideration