Ucc Permit Application Forms: Fill & Download for Free

The difference between Civil Code and Common Law is the length of their history, trial method, methods of reasoning, principles regarding precedent, and acceptance of abstractions like formal logic. However, both systems originated in the rulings of judges. People often say that Civil Code originates in statutes and Common law in judges’ rulings, but this is not true. Civil Code originated in the rulings of judges, and those ruling were turned into statutes (just as we are doing now in Common Law jurisdictions). However, Civil Codes’ original rulings began 2300 years ago, and their codification was begun 700 years later, so most people come to understand Civil Code through legislation and constitutions rather than as precedent. The French, Spanish, German, Italian, and etc Civil Codes are all based on principals, and often direct translations, from the Code Justinian, which was the codification of Roman Republic’s judges original rulings.You can encounter the differences between Civilian Code and Common Law most directly and easily in Louisiana law school textbooks which directly address the differences between European Civilian Code and Common Law. Louisiana State University’s law school, Hebert Law Center’s (“a bear”…not “he bert” …for you English ) first year law student curriculum has a class called “Civil Law” (see subsequent disambiguation), which addresses this very issue.The teachers of the first year Civil Law class at Hebert Law Center often write their own textbook, and those textbooks are often published through a local publisher called Claitor’s Publishing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I was taught civil law/code by Symeon Symeonides at LSU sometime in the mid 1990s. I have no doubt that you can contact Claitor’s law publishing division and find the most recent, or an older version of textbooks for that class. Southern University, Tulane, and Loyola Law Schools, since they are all in Louisiana’s jurisdiction, offer versions of that class. If memory serves, they all offer Civilian Code degrees, Common Law, degrees, and most commonly, training in both, but it has been a while and I may be wrong about that.I would NOT say that the previous, general accounts of the difference between Louisiana law and Common Law are are wrong in any way. People are trying to answer in as few words as possible.I will take the opposite approach, write too many words, with too much granularity and too much generalization; but, the history and present state of Civilian Code and Louisiana law with respect to Roman, Spanish, and French Civilian Code, and to Common Law practiced in the United States and Louisiana is considerably more complicated, and that difference is almost always summarized in an understandably utilitarian manner...grossly simplified for the usual discussion.Maybe those extra words are not necessary here. However, the question posed above leaves open the scope of the project of describing the difference between Common Law and Civil Law in Louisiana, and leaves open the desired granularity of history, reason, or phenomenology of Louisiana’s Civilian Code Laws versus European Civilian Code laws, and Common Law.From my perspective, I think Michael Finklestein’s answer is especially accurate, as you would expect from a practicing attorney.I am open to contradiction (perhaps even painful contradiction, tis best to know if you are wrong) for the claims I make below regarding the the differences of method and history in Common Law and Civil Code. I especially welcome a critique that refers to code or historical text, precedent, experience practicing law, or other text. I have as many links to texts and sources in my answer as I can make.This difference in method and deliberation of Common Law and European Civilian Code is an area of research for me in the present, was in the past, and I would especially appreciate the critical efforts of clerks like Mr. Couisin, or attorneys like Mr. Finklestein— any person intimately and concretely involved in the practice of Civilian Code and Common Law together, or with expertise based on some other experience.First, the terminology of this discussion is often inconsolably ambiguous: we will wind up having to distinguish between civil law, “civil code,” “Civil Code,” and “Civilian Code.” To avoid as much ambiguity as possible, some textbooks, law professors, attorneys, and etc refer to the European law tradition as “Civilian Code” rather than “Civil Code” to avoid confusion with the broader generic meanings of civil code or civil law, and to avoid confusion with extant civil code law in statutes like the Louisiana Civil Code:civil law exists in both the Common Law and European traditions.civil code is a statutory expression of civil law, the law that attends, mostly, to to non-criminal relations between citizens and the state.civil law in European Civilian Code jurisdictions, and in Louisiana, is almost always expressed in statutes, a formal published “Civil Code,” but can conform to local historical custom, or be plead, articulable, in formal logic, principles of justice and fairness, and legislative intent.In some jurisdictions, civil law and criminal law in the Common Law tradition can be expressed in stare decisis Common Law precedents alone. But many Common Law jurisdictions are codifying their statutes, especially criminal statutes, to permit uniformity and, hopefully, easier understanding of our obligations to each other and the (S)state (writ large, state: nation, country; writ smaller: Louisiana is a State)— just like Civilian Code jurisdictions did in the past. As of 2010, only twelve States in the United States still defined criminal acts through Common Law precedent rather than criminal law statutes.In both Civilian Code and Common Law, criminal law attends to actions by people with juridical personality (can be represented or speak somehow in a court of law) who break the peace, intend to do an action proscribed by statute or custom; and, such actions have criminal punishments which are statutory (and occasionally, but rarely, custom).You can also distinguish by levels of culpability, mens rea, guilty mind, criminal intent. The lowest level criminal level of intent begins with recklessness (something like intentionally running a stop sign, but not intending to run over a pedestrian).So:1) Common Law is the legal tradition of the British Isles/United Kingdom and its colonies, like the United States.2) Civilian Code, ambiguously and most commonly referred to as “Civil Code,” is the statutory expression of the European legal tradition, still used on most of the European Continent, which Louisiana still uses in it civil law (only), expressed in Louisiana’s civil law statutes, the Louisiana Civil Code.3) civil code is a statutory, legislatively authored version of civil law in some jurisdiction somewhere, which regulates non-criminal behavior like contracts (“obligations” in the terminology of Civilian Code and Lousiana’s Civil Code), family law, civil rights, non-criminal culpability (negligence or strict liability), and etc. When civil code is in a formal, organized, published form, it can be Civil Code.civil law is the complete scope of both civil code statutes and Common Law precedents (and statutes more and more), which regulate non-criminal behavior between juridical personalities: citizens, the state, and other critters like corporations, foreigners, witnesses, and attorneys.4) The Louisiana Civil Code, Louisiana’s statutory law regulating the non-criminal obligations (“civil law”) between citizens and the state, operates more or less within the language and intent of European Civilian Code tradition. For example Louisiana’s contract law is called “the law of obligations” rather than “contract law,” and contracts are formed as bilateral contracts, rather than through offer and acceptance language typically used in the Common Law tradition (which one law professor at LSU amusingly described as “grunt” and “slither”) . This picture is complicated by Louisiana’s (and most States in the U.S.) adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC], which has legal force in many trials. The statutory expression of Louisiana’s legislature is expressed in the text: Louisiana Civil Code.In Louisiana, criminal law is is the “Revised Statutes,” and the civil law is in the “Civil Code.” They are listed in the the Louisiana Laws Table of Contents These links should work:Laws Table of ContentsRevised StatutesLouisiana ConstitutionConstitution AncillariesChildren's CodeCivil CodeCode of Civil ProcedureCode of Criminal ProcedureCode of EvidenceHouse RulesSenate RulesJoint Rules5) Louisiana’s criminal code operates completely within the United States Common Law tradition, since twenty years after the Louisiana purchase. Form 1825 to the present, Louisiana’s criminal trial method is the Common Law “adversarial method” rather than inquisitorial method (European Civilian Code). The statutory expression of Louisiana’s criminal Law tradition is the text: Title 14 of Louisiana Revised Statutes.The Common Law criminal and civil law adjudication/trial tradition/method is “adversarial.” In essence, it is a joust in prescribed language rather than with chargers, lances, pitch, and sword. Each side speaks at different times, and makes its most sympathetic case without regard for any truth that cannot be forced upon litigants through rules of evidence or historic legal conventions (“without regard” may be a bit strong). Justice arises from the struggle of opposing forces in the language of precedent or statute, tilting at one another, forced to act along the boundaries of the metaphorical fence between them, the stands/crowd/observers/fans/Malory’s “worshipers”, the necessity of conflict, and the customs of armament, action: a trial by force.In a gross simplification, the Common Law ideal is sometimes expressed in a belief that justice arises through struggle itself. On this metaphor, Common Law trials have jousting, tournament-like boundaries bind/limit what litigants, witness, judge, jury, observer, or expert can say, what kinds of evidence can be produced and admitted to trial, when anyone can speak, how they can speak to the jury and each other, and a host of other restrictions which structure the adversarial attempt to adjudicate between litigants and for the parties to a case, and for the jurisdiction as a whole. The limits on pleaders (litigants, their representatives, and interested parties) in Common Law adjudications are often made by rules: no hearsay, no “experts” without bona fides, no observers yelling in the court, only judges give instructions to the jury, rights of defendants to avoid unjustified search, seizure or arrest, applications of parol evidence rule….European Civilian Code trials, civil law or criminal law, are “inquisitorial,” meaning that the judge, the attorneys, and the jury (depending upon the jurisdiction, Civilian Code jurisdictions often don’t use juries), may all be allowed to asked questions more or less at the same time (though in an orderly manner). There are still restrictions on the way that the people present may speak. However, the European Civilian Code trial method appears to open up the number of voices at trial. The Civilian Code tradition justice arises from the struggle of many voices, but presumably, not from struggle per se, rather a struggle that casts itself toward an inquisitorial goal, to seek the “truth,” to get a speakers honest representation of his injury or defense, a truth of justice, and tries to correlate to that truth with relatively open questioning. Justice is does not arise from struggle, but in spite of a struggle. The trial is directed to a correlation arguments, the law, and justice, to a truth which is perhaps an unreasonable expectation of a Platonic Good, that lies, mostly within articulable language, but sometimes, outside articulable language. This sounds very noble in comparison to the adversarial system, but in practice, its results in the search for justice are often in the hands of a judge who is rational as opposed to something less constructive. If negative generalizations are true, Common Law adjudications are incoherent and Civilian Code adjudications are inhumanely based on arcane terms of art and formal logic.Of course, it really depends upon the good will of trier’s of fact, not some inherent flaw in either system.So much for the philosophy.6) However, though the language of Louisiana’s civil law arises from European Civilian Code Statutes: Louisiana’s trial method for civil law adjudication is adversarial rather than inquisitorial. So, Louisiana’s civil law trial system is truly a mixed system. Its statutes —such as the law of obligation; or, torts— arise from the Civilian Code tradition, but its trial civil code trial method is adversarial rather than inquisitorial. In some ways, it makes Louisiana a perfect test tube for Common Law and European Civilian CodeThere is also confusion about the way European Civilian Code and Common Law arose and the history of the Louisiana statutes. It is commonly stated that European Civilian Code originated in statutes, and this is true, mostly. The various European Civilian Codes in Italy, Spain, France, and Germany are the descendants of Roman Law, which originated, like Common Law, in the decisions of judges. Roman judges from the early Republic settled disputes between citizens before any law but custom existed in Rome. The statutory nature of Civilian Code expressly describes the “sources” of law as legislation and custom. The early Roman judges decisions, when they were written, developed recursively alongside Rome’s legislatively created statutes. Roman law arose recursively, in the precedents of judges and the expression of a legislature’s intent in statutes.7) So, like Common Law, European Civil Code originated in the decisions of judges who set precedent came to be expressed the principle of Juris Prudence Constante rather than stare decisis (as André Couisin already mentioned).You can read André’s description on this page. However, those Roman judges’ decisions originated more than 2000 years ago and have been codified by, for example, Alaric II the Visigoth’s Breviary; all the Italian, Spanish, French, and German Civilian Codes; some pleadable principles of justice and fairness, and 2000 years of Civilian Code revisions which, in essence, often restate Roman Law principles. Nevertheless, these Civilian Codes have been in statute-form rather than precedent-form for a long time, so it is probably fair to say that they are statute based. Nevertheless, their origin of Roman Law is not entirely alienated from Common Law, as is often claimed. They both begin as the expression of judges resolving disputes between citizens and the state. You can argue that statutes, either, taint the justice of precedent; or, make the justice of precedent uniform. But, historically, European Civilian Code and Common Law both originated in the precedents of judges and their recursive intereaction with the legislative statutes (and, of course, these Common Law and European Civil Code origins are as much as 1000 years apart).Similarly to the early Roman Republic— after the Norman Invasion in 1066, there was no unified written law in the British Isles. The only written languages in the British Isles with observed conventions of punctuation and syntax at the time of the Norman invasion, were Latin and Greek— dead languages both. Norman French, the language of the William the Conqueror and his soldiers of fortune, had uniform written language conventions, but Norman French was mostly the language of the Crown, not the residents of the British Isles. Amusingly, English written language conventions were not well established until the fourteenth century (This is what makes Queen Elizabeth I’s letters and public documents so extraordinary. They appear totally modern in punctuation and syntax before nearly anyone else); and, English language conventions seem to have been largely created by the clerks of the bureaucracies of the U.K. Crown and law clerks. The most commonly spoken languages were the different versions of English, which were Germanic language, Breton, and Gaelic languages in Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, and etc. William established courts with judges he appointed. The judges made decisions based on local custom (again, varied between the disparate Gaels, Bretons, Anglos, Normans, and etc), some attention to the benefit of the Crown (the U.K. as a whole), ecclesiastic (Roman Catholic Law), sometimes existing French, German, or Spanish European Civil Code, and at their most desperate, some kind of formal reason, logic, accepted inferences. Common Law still has a horror of formal logic. If I remember right, there are European jurisdictions in which the thirteen or so valid languages inferences, like modus ponens, tollens, or disjunctive syllogism (collected by 200 AD) can be directly pleaded. There are laws and principles which unbind that logic in case of “absurd” consequence and can be directly pleaded by litigants. Those pleadings were historically rare. At any rate, Common Law developed, like the original Roman Law, in a series of decisions with precedent, like Roman Law, the precedents were sometimes modified by legislation, in a recursive relationship. And, like Roman Law, Common Law is becoming codified. For example, the last time I checked, in 2010:9) only twelves states still used Common Law precedents to define criminal behavior. The other 38 states created criminal statutes, which are still modified by precedent when interpreted judges, re-modified by legislators, in the same recursive process as European Civil Code.Nevertheless, despite the codification of Common Law, there are significant differences between the trial methods of European Civil Codes, and the restraints on police, which are institutional generally, rather than Constitutional.So:10) Louisiana’s criminal code criminal trials are a completely Common Law practice.11) Louisiana’s civil Law is European Civilian Code in language and intent, but is adjudicated in a Common Law adversarial method.Finally, Louisiana’s code is often called “Napoleonic Code.” But this more a history from A Streetcar Named Desire, than history. Before the Louisiana Purchase, Louisiana was mostly under the rule of the Spanish Empire, and not the French Empire. However, since the majority of the immigrants to Louisiana were French, the Spanish Civil Code was translated into French using the existing French Civilian Code, which had been updated during the First Republic to include Republican principles like egalité, “Napoleonic Code.” I was taught the the order and structure of the first iteration of the Louisiana Constitution (and many afteward) was based on the Spanish Civilian Code, observed in the order in which laws were stated, but translated into French by the Napoleonic Code (what was really, just French Civilian Code with some updates) and into English with the efforts of men like Edward Livingston who came to Lousiana intending to change its jurisdiction to Common Law Completely, but found themselves fascinated by the intellectual order of Civilian Code, as many European Enlightenment thinkers were.So,12) Lousiana’s Civil Code, is the bastard child of the need to translate Spanish Code into French, and retention of European Civilian Code prinicples in, for the most part, civil law only.With apologies to Stanley Kowalski, “Napoloeonic Code”…meh…I was, both at the same time, a law student at Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University [LSU] and a graduate assistant and instructor in philosophy at LSU. My understanding of the difference between Common Law and the European law tradition developed as I experienced the material simultaneously: while attending classes at LSU’s law school, and while completing my philosophy assistantship and writing an MA in philosophy thesis on the problems created by a similar dissonance between Anglo-American, analytic tradition, and the Continental tradition (which maintained the analytic tradition) but in the mid 90s was primarily directed to phenomenology, and subsequently what could loosely and inaccurately described as postmodernism.