The following is from the editor of the UCC Reporting Service & Digest.
He asked that I forward it to the list.
Leslie Ann Forrester
Law Library Director
Murphy Sheneman Julian & Rogers
San Francisco, CA
415/398-4700
FAX/421-7879
lafsmwb@well.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 15:53:48 -0400
From: Chris Hoving <choving@pf.com>
To: Leslie Forrester <lafsmwb@well.com>
Subject: The new digest volume controversy
Leslie:
Would you mind posting the paragraph below to the listserv from which you
got Ms. Calvin's posting? The issue is still being kicked around. Thanks
We are responding to the question raised as to whether the recently revised
UCC Case Digest volume covering Sections 3-302 to 3-307 was somehow in
error in not reflecting the 1990 Amendments to those sections. The answer
is that it was not in error inasmuch as that volume deals only with
sections prior to the 1990 Amendments and the volume revision was a
reclassification of cases construing those sections. As in the Finding
Aids volume, the entire Revised Article follows the entire Old Article.
The Old Articles are retained because some states may not have adopted them
(e.g., New York has not adopted Revised Articles 3 & 4), the events at
issue may be governed by prior law, or there may be historical interest in
seeing what prior law said. Thus, Revised Section 3-307, for example, can
be found in the pocket part of the Case Digest volume covering UCC Sections
3-415 to [Rev] 3-605 (two volumes after the one just revised). If you have
any other questions, feel free to contact me.
Chris Hoving
Managing Editor
UCC Reporting Service
<choving@pf.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:57 PST