1. Flagiello was a patient at Pennsylvania Hospital when she injured her ankle unrelated to her reason for admission. She brought suit against the hospital claiming that their negligence in maintaining the property resulted in her injury. The trial court dismissed the matter because of the established state common law of the charitable immunity doctrine and Flagiello appealed on the basis that she was a paying patient and that the charitable immunity doctrine was outdated.
Does the principle of stare decisis demand that the court follow precedent even though doing so would go against societal norms?
2. Cavel, an Illinois-based business, owned a facility in the U.S. for slaughtering horses where the meat was shipped to Europe for human consumption. Illinois passed a statute banning the practice of slaughtering horses if the primary reason for the slaughter was to produce meat for sale. Cavel sued to have the law invalidated as an unconstitutional act of state government.
Does the Illinois state law banning the practice of slaughtering horses if the primary reason for the slaughter was to produce meat for sale infringe on congressional rights to regulate interstate commerce?
No it does not. Stare decisis means following that which has been set by prier courts. It happens when the case resembles a similar one that had been solved by a similar court or a court of a lower jurisdiction. However, stare decisis which works under the basis of common law cannot be applied when in doing so societal norms would be contravened…