Legal Definitions - Citations, Law of

The Law of Citations was a pivotal decree in Roman law, enacted in A.D. 426 by Emperor Valentinian III. Its primary purpose was to standardize and clarify judicial decision-making by designating specific legal scholars, known as "jurists," whose writings could be cited as authoritative sources in court. This law formally recognized five prominent jurists—Papinian, Paul, Gaius, Ulpian, and Modestinus—whose opinions held significant, often binding, weight.

Under the Law of Citations, judges were bound by specific rules when consulting these jurists' works:

• If a majority of the five designated jurists agreed on a particular legal issue, the judge was obligated to follow that majority opinion.
• In situations where the jurists were equally divided on an issue (e.g., two for one view, two for another, and one silent or absent), the opinion of Papinian was given precedence and would decide the matter.
• Only if the jurists were equally divided and Papinian had not expressed an opinion on that specific issue, could the judge exercise their own discretion in reaching a decision.

This legislation significantly streamlined the judicial process, reducing the complexities and conflicts arising from a vast body of legal literature and providing a clear hierarchy of authority for legal principles.

Examples:

• Majority Rule in Property Dispute: Imagine a Roman court case concerning the ownership of a valuable piece of land. The plaintiff argues that the land should revert to the original family after a certain period, based on an ancient custom. The defendant claims absolute ownership due to a recent purchase. The judge consults the writings of the five authorized jurists. Four of them (Paul, Gaius, Ulpian, and Modestinus) have clearly articulated in their legal commentaries that such land, under these specific conditions, indeed reverts to the original family. Papinian, however, has expressed a dissenting view in one of his treatises. How it illustrates the term: According to the Law of Citations, since a clear majority (four out of five) of the designated jurists agreed on the principle of reversion, the judge would be legally compelled to rule in favor of the plaintiff. The judge's personal interpretation or Papinian's minority opinion would be overridden by the authoritative majority view.

• Papinian's Tie-Breaking Authority in Contract Law: Consider a complex commercial dispute where a merchant is suing for breach of contract, claiming significant damages. The defendant argues that a specific clause in the contract, which the plaintiff relies upon, is unenforceable due to a technicality. The judge reviews the jurists' opinions. Two jurists (Gaius and Ulpian) have written that similar clauses are generally unenforceable, while the other two (Paul and Modestinus) argue they are valid and binding. This creates an equal division among four jurists. The judge then discovers that Papinian, in one of his extensive legal opinions, has specifically addressed this type of contractual technicality and concluded that such clauses are indeed valid. How it illustrates the term: In this scenario, with an equal split among four jurists, the Law of Citations dictates that Papinian's opinion breaks the tie. Even though there isn't a majority, Papinian's view prevails, and the judge must rule that the clause is valid, thereby enforcing the contract as per Papinian's interpretation.

• Judicial Discretion in an Unprecedented Case: Suppose a unique legal question arises regarding liability for damages caused by a new type of public nuisance, where the circumstances involve an unusual combination of factors not directly covered by existing precedents. The judge reviews the writings of the five jurists. Paul and Ulpian offer opinions that suggest limited liability for the party responsible for the nuisance in such a specific situation, while Gaius and Modestinus present arguments that would imply full liability. Crucially, after thorough research, it is found that Papinian's extensive works are silent on this particular, nuanced set of facts. How it illustrates the term: Here, there is an equal division (two for limited liability, two for full liability) among the jurists, and significantly, Papinian has not expressed an opinion on this precise issue. Under the Law of Citations, this is the rare instance where the judge is permitted to exercise their own discretion. They can weigh the arguments, consider the specific facts of the case, and make a ruling based on their own legal judgment, as the authoritative jurists provide no definitive answer.