Publication Date

5-2025

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Some statewide intermediate appellate courts, like those in Kansas, do not follow horizontal stare decisis one panel of the court can disagree with, but not overrule, another. This article reviews how precedential disagreements arise in the Kansas Court of Appeals, what the costs and benefits are of not following horizontal stare decisis, and how attorneys might change their advocacy approach in a state like Kansas. The article concludes that the benefits of the Kansas practice achieving better development of the law and justice in individual cases outweighs the harm of less predictability in precedent

Publication Title

Kansas Law Review

Volume

73

Issue

5

Download

Share

COinS