Scott Jensen owned two hundred acres of farmland in California. A creek flowed through the land, and Jensen used water from the creek to irrigate his crops. The water was adequate for his needs. Wesley Sarvis purchased farmland upstream from Jensen’s property and began using water from the creek to irrigate. Claiming that he had exclusive rights to the water, Jensen filed a lawsuit in a California state court against Sarvis for using the water. The court held that Jensen and Sarvis had to divide their water use equally and that each of them was entitled to use the water every other week. Fifty years later, a similar dispute arose between two more California farmers. Bo Ellis lived upstream from Faye Deason. Deason claimed that she had exclusive rights to the water and filed a lawsuit in a California state court against Ellis for his use of the water. In the second case, Deason v. Ellis, the court will most likely

a. apply stare decisis and give Ellis exclusive rights to the water.                

b. apply stare decisis and divide the water rights because the facts of the two cases are similar.                

c. refuse to apply stare decisis and overturn the rule because so much time has passed.               

d. refuse to apply stare decisis and overturn the rule because the facts of the cases are not similar.