Cited by

We are extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent absent a ‘compelling reason.’ ” (citations omitted).

“The doctrine of stare decisis has special force in the area of statutory interpretation because the Legislature is free to alter what we have done.”

equirement would be contrary to the core purpose of precedent: 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), ).

This is so because “[w]e are extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent absent ‘a compelling reason.’ ” ().

As a consequence, “‘[t]he doctrine of stare decisis has special force in the area of statutory interpretation because the Legislature is free to alter what we have done.’” (alteration in original) ().

undation when it “does not include the facts and/or data upon which the expert relied in forming [the] opinion,” Steffen v. Target Stores , does not “ explain the basis for [the] opinion,” or when the expert assumes facts that “are not supported by the evidence,”

Our supreme court has stated, “The doctrine of stare decisis directs us to adhere to our former decisions in order to promote the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.”

For that reason, “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis has special force in the area of statutory interpretation because the Legislature is free to alter what we have done.”

See Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , , 237 & n.2 (Minn. 2014).

" Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , , 238 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Martin , , 98 (Minn. 2009) ).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that the “doctrine of stare decisis has special force in the area of statutory interpretati on because the Legislature is free to alter what [the courts] have done.” Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , d 233, 238 (Minn. 2014).

Harris , d at 598 (quoting State v. Lee , , 494 (Minn. 2005) ); see also Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , , 238 (Minn. 2014) ("The doctrine of stare decisis ...

“The doctrine of stare decisis has special force in the area of statutory interpretation because the Legislature is free to alter what we have done.”

(stating that a compensation judge has the discretion to choose between “competing and conflicting medical experts’ reports and opinions” (emphasis added)).

("We are extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent absent 'a compelling reason.'

“the compensation judge was free to choose among conflicting medical experts’ opinions” on whether a brain injury had occurred.

("We are extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent absent a compelling reason.'

(requiring a “compelling reason” to overrule precedent ().

d 233, 238-39 (Minn. 2014) (reasoning that policy determinations in the Workers’ Compensation Act are left to the Legislature); Dukowitz v. Hannon Sec.