We agree. In its decision, the trial court reasoned that although precedent cases "seemingly disposed of" the present dispute in favor of Berger, these cases were not controlling because they were outdated and incorrectly decided. Record, pp. 70-72. In Indiana, we follow the doctrine of stare decisis In Marsillett v. State, the supreme court held: "Under the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court adheres to a principle of law which has been firmly established. Important policy considerations militate in favor of continuity and predictability in the law. Therefore, we are reluctant to disturb long-standing precedent which involves salient issues." Marsillett v. State, 495 N.E.2d 699, 704 (Ind.1986); See Nash Eng'g Co. v. Marcy Realty Corp., 222 Ind. 396, 399, 54 N.E.2d 263, 268 (1944) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we will follow the appropriate
holding that the doctrine of stare decisis is most frequently applied in cases affecting real property holding that decision by panel of this court is established precedent under rules of stare decisis holding that stare decisis is not applicable unless the issue was squarely addressed in a prior decision recognizing that the doctrine of stare decisis embodies the obligation to follow precedent holding that the doctrine of stare decisis applies to the issue of reliability of new scientific techniques the intoxilyzer in that case