Kinda but not really. Jurisprudence is not the primary source of law in civilian countries; generally civil codes are. Additionally, civilian jurisdictions often treat legal scholar analysis as equally or more persuasive than previous case-law.
So this portion:
>New laws can be written to correct for a courts opinion, yet the courts are free to evolve what they think things mean over time.
Isn't accurate. Courts are bound to apply the law, and most law presented in civil codes is far more rigid and mechanical than those found in common law jurisdictions. In the civilian tradition the proper avenue for reform isn't a judge writing a new rule in a ruling. It's a legal reform project at the legislative level, where legislators and legal scholars go over the code, eventually resulting in a new version.
Are there going to be controversial cases that end up getting emergency legislative attention? Sure, but they're the exception, not the rule.
That said, there are over 150 countries that operate broadly under the civil law tradition, so while what I'm saying is accurate about the tradition as a whole, there are many exceptions on a jurisdictional basis.