Cited by

As the supreme court has explained, adherence to precedent “promotes stability, order, and predictability in the law.”

Although this court is “not bound to unsound principles, following precedent promotes stability, order, and predictability in the law.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“We will only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to do so.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

But just as the Minnesota Supreme Court regards its own decisions, “[w]e will only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to do so[,]” Ariola, d at 356 (), and “[t]he reasons for departing from former decisions must greatly outweigh reasons for adhering to them[,]” id.

-29 (Minn. 2009) (holding that Minnesota six-year statute of limitations is procedural and, thus, applies in Minnesota court instead of Pennsylvania two-year statute of limitations); -53 (Minn. 1983) (holding that Minnesota rule concerning joinder of 10 parties is procedur

cedent: to “‘foster[] reliance on judicial decisions,’” to “‘promote the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process,’” and to “promote[] the important values of ‘stability, order, and predictability.’” See Chauvin, d at 690 (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991), ).

As the supreme court ha s explained, “following precedent promotes stability, order, and predic tability in the law.” Fleeger v. Wyeth , 15 III.

Adherence to the principle of stare decisis promotes the important values of “stability, order, and predictability.”

The City also urges us to affirm what it deems to be 30 years of fairly consistent precedent from the court of appeals to promote “stability, order, and predictability in the law.” .

Nor are we persuaded by Moore’s citation to Fleeger v. Wyeth , .

Such an approach promotes the important values of “stability, order, and predictability.” -29 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).

to support its argument that all statutes of limitations governing common law actions are procedural and therefore within the purview of the judiciary.