arious roles in our legal system there has been a tendency to stray from strict civilian metho ds and Even if the tendency has been 'to stray from strict civilian methodsas Justice Barham put it the common-law doctrine of stare decisis has no place in the jurisprudence of Louisiana. 5I Scholars familiar with both trad itions, however, have not always agreed upon this statement. In 1937. Professor gordon Ireland authored a controversial article entitled Louisiana's Legal System Reappraised, which broadly declared that Louisiana is today common law State, based in part on a misconception of the doctrine of stare decisis.53At first glance, the doctrines of stare decisis and jurisprudence constante appear quite similar, but the difference between them is one of the chief things which distinguishes the two great systems of law. 54 According to Professors Daggett, Dainow, Hebert, and McMahon, who wrote the famed response to Professor Ireland entitled A Reappraisal Appraised. A Brief for the Civil Law of louisiana, 55 there are two fundamental differences between the legal doctrines The two most important differences.. between the doctrine of jurisprudence constante and the rule of stare decisis, are: (1)a single case affords a sufficient foundation forthe latter, while a series of djudicated cases all in accord forms the predicate of the former, and (2) case law in civilian jurisdictions is merely law defacto, while under the common law technique it is law de jure. 56 In Quaker Realty Company v. Labasse, 7 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that only seldom can a single decision serve as a basis for stare decisis. . never where opposed to previous decisions, and especially where such previous decisions are overruled without being referred to, as if having escaped altogether the attention of the court. 58 The use of the words stare decisis, as noted above has caused much uncertainty in the state of the law. 59 To resolve Mack E. Barham, A Renaissance of the Civilian Tradition in Louisiana, 33 TUL. L REV. 357, 359 51 See Hamiet Spiller Daggett, Joseph Dainow, Paul M. Hebert, Henry George McMahon, A d: A Brieffor the Civil Law oflo 12 TUL. L REV. 12(1937) see also John H. Tucker, Jr, The Code and the Common Law in Louisiana, 29 TUL. L REV. 739(1955); but cf. Ireland, infra note 52 at 585 Gordon Ireland, Louisiana's Legal System Reappraised, 1I TUL. L REV. 585(1937) 53 Id. at 596 Henry, supra note 3 at 11 Daggett et al, supra note 51 Id. at17 131La.996,60S0.661(La,1912) Id.at1008.60So.at665 According to Professors Daggett, Dainow, Hebert and McMahon, Professor Gordon Ireland was misled by this erroneous label. ' Anyone makinga superficial examination of louisiana jurisprudence is quite apt to reach entirely erroneous conclusions because of the loose manner in which common la wterm inology is employed as being synonymous with accepted civilian nomenclature. Thus the repeated use of the terms"fee simple title"and"deed"might induce the rea der to conclude that Louisiana has adopted the common lawofreavarious roles in our legal system, there has been a tendency to stray from strict civilian metho ds and concepts.50 Even if the tendency has been ‘to stray from strict civilian methods’ as Justice Barham put it, the common-law doctrine of stare decisis has no place in the jurisprudence of Louisiana.51 Scholars familiar with both traditions, however, have not always agreed upon this statement. In 1937, Professor Gordon Ireland authored a controversial Article entitled Louisiana’s Legal System Reappraised, 52 which broadly declared that ‘Louisiana is today a common law State,’ based in part on a misconception of the doctrine of stare decisis.53 At first glance, the doctrines of stare decisis and jurisprudence constante appear quite similar, but ‘the difference between them is one of the chief things which distinguishes the two great systems of law.’54 According to Professors Daggett, Dainow, Hébert, and McMahon, who wrote the famed response to Professor Ireland entitled A Reappraisal Appraised: A Brief for the Civil Law of Louisiana, 55 there are two fundamental differences between the legal doctrines: The two most important differences . . . between the doctrine of jurisprudence constante and the rule of stare decisis, are: (1) a single case affords a sufficient foundation for the latter, while a series of adjudicated cases all in accord forms the predicate of the former; and (2) case law in civilian jurisdictions is merely law de facto, while under the common law technique it is law de jure. 56 In Quaker Realty Company v. Labasse, 57 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that ‘only seldom can a single decision serve as a basis for stare decisis . . . never where opposed to previous decisions, and especially where such previous decisions are overruled without being referred to, as if having escaped altogether the attention of the court.’58 The use of the words stare decisis, as noted above, has caused much uncertainty in the state of the law.59 To resolve 50 Mack E. Barham, A Renaissance of the Civilian Tradition in Louisiana, 33 TUL. L. REV. 357, 359 (1973). 51 See Harriet Spiller Daggett, Joseph Dainow, Paul M. Hébert, & Henry George McMahon, A Reappraisal Appraised: A Brief for the Civil Law of Louisiana, 12 TUL. L. REV. 12 (1937); see also John H. Tucker, Jr., The Code and the Common Law in Louisiana, 29 TUL. L. REV. 739 (1955); but cf. Ireland, infra note 52 at 585. 52 Gordon Ireland, Louisiana’s Legal System Reappraised, 11 TUL. L. REV. 585 (1937). 53 Id. at 596. 54 Henry, supra note 3 at 11. 55 Daggett et al., supra note 51. 56 Id. at 17. 57 131 La. 996, 60 So. 661 (La., 1912). 58 Id. at 1008, 60 So. at 665. 59 According to Professors Daggett, Dainow, Hébert and McMahon, Professor Gordon Ireland was misled by this erroneous label. ‘Anyone making a superficial examination of Louisiana jurisprudence is quite apt to reach entirely erroneous conclusions because of the loose manner in which common law terminology is employed as being synonymous with accepted civilian nomenclature. Thus the repeated use of the terms “fee simple title” and “deed” might induce the reader to conclude that Louisiana has adopted the common law of real