In several states, codification is frequently handled as a simple restatement of the case law, to the extent that the topic matter of the specific legislative act in dispute was addressed by a few judge-made precepts at case law. Judges are unrestrained to generously understand the codes unless and until their interpretings are specifically overruled by the law-makers. In other states, there's a tradition of rigorous adhesion to the apparent text of the codes.

The vantage of code is that once the state legislative assembly becomes habituated to composing fresh laws as amendments to an present code, the code will normally reflect representative opinion as to what the modern law is (although the whole state of the law must all of the time be assured by retrospecting common law to find out how judges have understood a specific codified statute).

In direct contrast, in legal powers with uncodified legislative acts, like the Great Britain, finding out what the law is can be a harder action. One has to trace back to the most former crucial Act of Parliament, and then describe every last ulterior Acts which rectified the earlier Act, or which instantly overruled it. For instance, when the Great Britain decided to produce a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, lawgivers had to distinguish every individual Act touching on to the British House of Lords that was still effective law, and then rectify all of those laws to refer to the Supreme Court.