Using case law and considering any advantages and disadvantages to what extent does the doctrine of precedent depend on the hierachy of the court

The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle.” (Stare decisis, 2010).
The doctrine of precedent is also called as stare decisis, situated at the heart of the English lawful arrangement. It is a lawful rule by which adjudicators are obligated to admiration of the precedents created by previous judgment. This doctrine also refers to the information surrounded by the hierarchical construction of the English magistrates. A judgment made by the superior court will be connected to an inferior court in the hierarchy structure. In broad expressions, this denotes that when adjudicators attempt cases that will make sure to see if a similar circumstance appears before the court. If the precedent is placed by a court of equivalent or superior rank makes a new decision, and then the adjudicator in the current case should pursue or follow the rule of law founded in the previous case attended in the court. “It is noted that the doctrine of precedent depends for its operation upon the underlying principle that the courts form a hierarchy with each court standing in a definite position in relation to every other court. The structure of this hierarchy must now be considered for the purposes if the doctrine of precedent. Decisions of the highest courts are binding on lower courts.” (Doctrine of judicial precedent &amp. its hierarchy of court, 2010).
In most cases, it is deemed that a decision made by a higher court is a binding precedent, which a lower court cannot overrule. Also, a court should not upset its own precedents unless there is a valid reason to do so. This needs to be motivated by principles from similar and lower courts.
Another aspect that needs to be considered is the extent to which equal or higher courts could set legal precedents or