325 Md. 342, 362, 601 A.2d 102 (1992); Erie Ins. Co. v. Chops, 322 Md. 79, 91, 585 A.2d 232 (1991); Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 28, 557 A.2d 210 (1989); Miles Labs., Inc. Cutter Labs. Div. v. Doe, 315 Md. 704, 724, 556 A.2d 1107 (1989); Anne Arundel County v. Fraternal Order of Anne Arundel Detention Officers & Personnel, 313 Md. 98, 106-07, 543 A.2d 841 (1988); Ireland v. State, 310 Md. 328, 331, 529 A.2d 365 (1987); Harris v. State, 306 Md. 344, 357, 509 A.2d 120 (1986). Others have discussed the prospective nature of such modifications, see Julian v. Christopher, 320 Md. 1, 10-11, 575 A.2d 735 (1990); American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. Goldstein, 312 Md. 583, 592 n. 7, 541 A.2d 955 (1988), or the interaction of these modifications with legislative policy 9, 335, 347 A.2d 905 (1975) (<HOLDING>); and Loyola Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v.
holding that the doctrine of stare decisis applies to the issue of reliability of new scientific techniques the intoxilyzer in that case holding that stare decisis required the court to adhere to a prior statutory interpretation despite the agencys subsequent interpretation of the statute contrary to the settled law holding wjhatever the merits of the application of res ipsa loquitur to the facts in this case it is beyond our authority to decide contrary to clearly established law set forth by the court of appeals we are bound by stare decisis holding that the court is not bound by the law of the case where an earlier decision of the us armed services board of contract appeals was clearly erroneous holding that decision by panel of this court is established precedent under rules of stare decisis