Article by Professor Vernon V. Palmer
I am delighted that my colleague Professor Cueto-Rua has written a critique of my article, The Death of a Code—The Birth of a Digest, and I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief response. Due to time and space restrictions, it will not be possible to respond in detail to every point that Professor Cueto-Rua has discussed. My only purpose here is to consider the most important areas of disagreement.
First, Professor Cueto-Rua clearly disagrees with my conclusion that codal concurrency now exists in Louisiana and that the piecemeal revision has produced only a partial repeal of the old code provisions which have been revised. In the first part of my response, I will attempt to show that his analysis has not properly dealt with what I call the elementary principle of legislation and, furthermore, that Professor Cueto-Rua's own theory, by which all old code provisions undergoing revision are invalidated, has been specifically rejected in Louisiana.
Second, Professor Cueto-Rua's article rejects my general conclusion that the Civil Code has been transformed into a digest. In the second part of my response, I will attempt to point out that his dissatisfaction with my conclusion is perhaps principally due to nonconventional assumptions that he makes concerning the nature of a code and the proper relationship between codes, sources of law, and the code's jurisprudence. In the final analysis, I conclude that what the learned author means by a code is what most civilians would call a digest and to say that the digest is alive and well is in fact my own thesis.
About the Author
Professor Vernon V. Palmer. Thomas Pickles Professor of Law, Tulane University; B.A., LL.B. Tulane University; LL.M. Yale University; D. Phil. Pembroke College, Oxford University.
Citation
64 Tul. L. Rev. 177 (1989)