Perhaps the doctrine of stare decisis is sometimes deserving of severe criticism in its application to matters of substantive law; but the unfortunate results of uncritical adherence to precedent appear most clearly in regard to rules of procedure, where the demand for certainty cannot be justified by a supposed reliance of laymen on "settled" rules. The evils are aggravated where inconvenient decisions are not undermined or their effects evaded by the lawyer's typical process of "distinguishing'' cases. A forcible illustration is the firm refusal of most courts to extend quasicontractual relief to cases of use and occupation of land by trespassers.