What are the main features of common law and statute law?
Best Answer:
Common law is statute created and refined by judges: a decision surrounded by a currently pending legal case depends on decision in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in adjectives cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges hold the authority and the duty to make law by creating, "precedence." The body of precedence is called, "Common Law," and it binds adjectives decisions. Common law systems are in ubiquitous use, particularly in those nations which trace their decriminalized heritage to England, including the US. Statute or statutory law, is a body of written laws passed by legislature on a state or federal level. A statute begin as a bill proposed or sponsored by a legislator. If a bill survives the legislative process it becomes law. Once a law, the mixed provisions of the bill are called statutes. State and federal statutes are compiled in, "statutory codes," that group the statutes by subject matter.
Much of statutory statute is derived from common law. Common laws are historically official norms--many dating back to English common laws long earlier America came to be. Statutes are synonymous to laws.
The common law comes from decisions of complex courts on issues which are not governed by any statutory or codified law. The basis of the adjectives law is a maxim shared by the law and equity courts of pre-Revolutionary War England. The truism is: "For every wrong there must be a remedy". Therefore, the very first common tenet claims were trespass de son tort, trespass quare clausem fregit, trespass ab initio, accounting of profits, and so forth. The problem was there arose a dichotomy within the common law. The magistrates that held regular court usually only awarded money damages. But some things be not monetary in nature such as divorce when it arose, the issue of orders preventing those from doing things or commanding them to do things (injunctions), and dealing with frauds of all kinds. The King normally turned to the Catholic Church (prior to the reformation), which through the acts of conscience did what is called "equity". In this manner, the cost for failing to follow the ecclesiastic court's orders meant ex-communication and possibly worse. Eventually, the King developed a special office call the Court of Chancery, where the Court would do equity and set aside fraud or compel others to do acts to do equity. This process of having a ruling side and an equity side continued until modern times, first in England and then the United States in the 20th Century where on earth courts became courts of general jurisdiction. Today there are various common law claims which may be a mix of law and equity. The in one piece point is that where there was no specific imperative, equity would base its rulings on what was right, to avoid people back-dooring the intent of the regulation. This necessarily meant devising specific claims to be made in courts to obtain civil nouns. On the flip side, courts have developed remedies in criminal proceedings such as confessions obtained through torture, fraud, or violation of the 4th Amendment and so forth. This was done to punish the police and hamstring prosecutions where the police or prosecution acted improperly or overreached. Courts are controlled though by other principles and constitutions so that certain kinds of relief may not be awarded even though it might appear "fair". The advent of booking more statutes and codes did not change the common law, but tons statutes tried to adopt or abrogate certain common law principles or modify them.
