What are the similarities between statutory law and common law(case law) ?
928308
Statutory and common laws are basically based on the same principles of what is good and bad.  The parliament and the judges always consider the public opinion in making laws.  What the majority thinks is the basic element in making a law.
1144634
Civil Law encompasses the issues of tort claims, money, probate, common law, divorces, family law and issues where law enforcement is not involved. Traffic accident claims, insurance issues and things that do not involve crimes. Civil actions do not usually involve jail. They involve settlements for stuff like personal injury, juvenile law, adoptions, divorces and the like. \n\nCriminal law involves the treatment of people who break the law and are victims of crimes. Robberies, murders, burglaries, and anything else you can go to jail for and be charged with are crimes and are under the jurisdiction of criminal law.
933042
Not sure what you mean but perhaps; the law is divided into criminal and civil law and also into statute and case law.\n\nThe division into criminal and civil law is fairly obvious and very broadly speaking civil law may be regarded as being concerned with contracts made between people and or companies or states.\n\nStatute law are the laws passed by government a system we inherited from the Romans. Case law is derived from the old Anglo-Saxon system of justice is based on precedence established in previous cases it is also concerned with interpretation of statute law.
210564
Sorry, not familiar with the case, but I do suggest Lexis Nexis at your college library
1051473
Criminal cases are those in which the State (be it in the form of national, state, or local government) prosecutes a citizen for the violation of the social order. The defining point of criminal law is punishment -- if the citizen loses the State can throw him in jail, or fine him (or even take his life). Most criminal law (but not all, there are important exceptions) is statutory -- meaning it has been written down by a legislative body.\n\nCivil cases are those in which an individual (for the purposes of the law, partnerships and corporations are individuals too) asserts that one of their rights have (or is about to be) violated. (the government can be an individual in many cases also). These cases include suing someone for hitting you (asserting your right not to be hit), or suing a corporation for violating an anti-trust statute (asserting a right to fair competition).\n\nIt is inaccurate to say that equity is another or specific kind of civil case. In truth, cases aren't either "equitable" or "legal" anymore; many cases have bits of both involved. The distinction comes from the origin of the American legal system. Back in the 1600's and 1700's in England, there are different courts for different things. There were "courts legal" which doled out remedies (money) for certain specific "writs" (one such writ was for trespass to chattels -- basically theft or larceny today). The Chancellery courts were empowered, on the other hand, to determine cases according to "justice" -- basically however the chancellor saw fit.\n\nEven today there are distinctions between actions in equity and those "at law" although we no longer have different court systems (although that's not true in every state, Delaware has a court of the chancellery still). But all courts are today governed by the rules of "res judicata" and "stare decisis," (basically those mean that whatever the court has decided in the past should be applied to new cases instead of being changed much) although a court "sitting in equity" has more freedom to come to judgments based on what it thinks is "fair" and "equitable."\n\nHowever, for the most part the distinction is purely academic today, and interests only people who do this sort of thing for a living and like to keep using 200 year-old terms to confuse people.
1110768
In medieval times, there were two court systems.\n\nCourts of law granted primarily monetary damages. Courts of equity granted primarily injunctions (orders to do or not do something). \n\nThis distinction has pretty much been eliminated in the US, where most courts can now grant relief at law or in equity, as appropriate to the claim. \n\nThe phrase "common law" generally refers to the decisions handed down by the courts, starting with the Old English common law, and more recently referring generally just to legal precedent derived from past cases. Common law decisions in the US govern interpretations of the law, as well as issues related to remedies at law (damages) and in equity. So, again, the distinction in the US has largely been eliminated.
1054417
The term generally refers to male-female couples that have been cohabitating for a number of years, but not married.  There are a few states that recognize "common law partners" as having similar (but not all the same) rights as those of a married couple (ie divison of property or child custody in the case the relationship goes sour).  However, I believe they need to be in a committed relationship and cohabitating together for 7+ years (again, varies by state to state).  \nDomestic partner would be the term for same-sex couples (and this is a hot topic of debate in the U.S. as to what rights, if any, same-sex couples should have as compaired to a married, hetorosexual couple).  Hope this helps a little.
93588
Norms are basically the conduct and carriage that society expects from its citizens.  It is under norms that people can peaceably co-exists (i.e., as long as everyone follows the norms, everyone is at peace with everyone else).  Laws, on the other hand, are the official requirements of a society, the violation of which generally results in loss of liberty or property (or occasionally life).
292962
Civil Law, Natural Law, and the Law of the Peoples.
318580
In the United States, as well as other common law countries, it is not necessary that a policy be recorded in a national code.  Common law (case made law) has the force of law and may not be necessarily codified,
371883
Good question, as English common law does not apply.\n\nThe common law rule is you have to take possession of the land for 20 years without the owner complaining, and it's yours.
1168190
No....law does not recognize a "common law" marriage.  It is thought of more like a partnership.
19336
This is pretty interesting...in South Carolina a common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.\n\nSouth Carolina\n\nThe criteria for a common law marriage is: (1) when two parties have a present intent (usually, but not necessarily, evidenced by a public and unequivocal declaration) to enter into a marriage contract; and (2) "a mutual agreement between the parties to assume toward each other the relation of husband and wife." See Tarnowski v. Lieberman (S.C. Ct. App. 2002). The minimum age for such a marriage is sixteen years-old as established by South Carolina Code of Laws 20-1-100 (2004).
520029
Most of the American codes of law are based upon the English system.  As if we were common brothers under the law.  Therefore to determine the origin of American "common law" you would have to go back to the English System.  This in itself is an insurmountable task, unless you wish to study to be a lawyer, and at that, you wouldn't have enough time in your life to review the whole thing.  Just hit on highlights.
70508
also try www.westlaw.com\ngo to the law library.....they could help you cite the case to make it easier!
1067926
Until the beginning of the 20th century, most common law jurisdictions had two parallel court systems, courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognised only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" that recognised trusts of property and could issue injunctions, orders to do or stop doing something. Although the separate courts were merged long ago in most jurisdictions, or at least all courts were permitted to apply both law and equity, the distinction between law and equity remains important in categorising and prioritising rights to property, and in the principles that apply to the grant of equitable remedies by the courts. In the United States, the distinction can determine whether the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial applies (a determination of a fact necessary to resolution of a "law" claim) or whether the issue can only be decided by a judge (issues of equity).
535780
Under the common law, many crimes were not set out in statutes.  \nSex with animals, a crime against nature, was such a common law crime, and would pre-date Columbus.  \n\nMale homosexual sex was, probably, also a common law "crime against nature" but was specifically prohibited by a statute passed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, also predating Columbus.  The English colonies in America were, of course, subject to this law.\n\nInterestingly, Female homosexual sex was not prohibited by the Elizabeth I law.  I have seen published accounts which state that when she read the proposed statute (which did include a prohibition of female homosexual acts) the queen stated something like "ladies do not do such things" and required that those provisions be taken out of the statute.\n\nIf you need more information than this, the best place would be a law school library which may have early books of statutes from the 1780s through 1800s.