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 Ellis 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 other California farmers. be Ellis lived upstream from Faye Deason. Deason claimed that she had exclusive rights to the water and field a lawsuit in a a California state court against Ellis for his use of the water. How will a court most likely rule in the second case, Deason v. Ellis? a. The court will most likely apply stare decisis and divide the water rights because the facts of the two cases are similar. b. The court will most likely apply stare decisis and give Ellis exclusive rights to the water. c. The court will most likely refuse to apply stare decisis and overturn the rule because so much time has passed. d. The court will most like refuse to apply stare decisis and overturn the rule because the facts of the cases are not similar