Statutory law is legislation 

— the written laws (statutes) that have been enacted into

force by the legislature.

Statutory law is strictly speaking primary legislation, but by longstanding convention

includes secondary or delegated legislation — because they’re part of the statutes
anyway.

Caselaw is the body of binding rulings from the courts when administering the
statutory law, and those rulings are then received into the overall law of the land. That
means the jurisdiction that uses caselaw treats it as a source of law.

There’s no need to see them as separate or together because in real life they operate
together anyway in Common Law jurisdictions.

It’s only in Civil Code jurisdictions that separates — because caselaw isn’t a source of law
in that type of jurisdiction.

The term case law refers to law that comes from decisions made by judges in
previous cases. Case law, also known as “common law,” and “case precedent,”
provides a common contextual background for certain legal concepts, and how
they are applied in certain types of case. How much sway case law holds may
vary by jurisdiction, and by the exact circumstances of the current case.  To
explore this concept, consider the following case law definition.

Definition of Case Law

Noun
1. The law as established in previous court rulings; like common law, which
springs from judicial decisions and tradition.
Origin
1860-1865       English common law

What is Case Law

Statutory laws are those created by legislative bodies, such as Congress at both
the federal and state levels. While this type of law strives to shape our society,
providing rules and guidelines, it would be impossible for any legislative body to
anticipate all situations and legal issues. The court system is then tasked with
interpreting the law when it is unclear how it applies to any given situation, often
rendering judgments based on the intent of lawmakers and the circumstances of
the case at hand. Such decisions become a guide for future similar cases.
In order to preserve a uniform enforcement of the laws, the legal system adheres
to the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “stand by decided matters.”  This
means that a court will be bound to rule in accordance with a previously made
ruling on the same type of case. Precedent, or case law, is binding on courts of
the same level or lower, and applies only if there is no legislative statute created,
or higher court ruling, that overrules it.

Example of Case Law Application

Stacy, a tenant in a duplex owned by Martin, filed a civil lawsuit against her
landlord, claiming he had not given her enough notice before raising her rent,
citing a new state law that requires a minimum of 90 days’ notice. Martin argues
that the new law applies only to landlords of large multi-tenant properties. When
the state court hearing the case reviews the law, he finds that, while it mentions
large multi-tenant properties in some context, it is actually quite vague about
whether the 90-day provision applies to all landlords. The judge, based on the
specific circumstances of Stacy’s case, decides that all landlords are held to the
90-day notice requirement, and rules in Stacy’s favor.
A year later, Frank and Adel have a similar problem. When they sue their
landlord, the court must use the previous court’s decision in applying the law.
This example of case law refers to two cases heard in the state court, at the
same level. The ruling of the first court created case law that must be followed by
other courts until or unless either new law is created, or a higher court rules
differently.

Case Law by Jurisdiction

Case law is specific to the jurisdiction in which it was rendered. For instance, a
ruling in a California appellate court would not usually be used in deciding a case
in Oklahoma. While there is no prohibition against referring to case law from a
state other than the state in which the case is being heard, it holds little sway.
Still, if there is no precedent in the home state, relevant case law from another
state may be considered by the court.
Rulings made by federal appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, however,
are binding on state courts. Such rulings become “binding precedent,” which
must be adhered to by lower courts in future similar cases. Rulings by courts of
“lateral jurisdiction” are not binding, but may be used as persuasive authority,
which is to give substance to the party’s argument, or to guide the present court.

Case Law Search

Just a few years ago, searching for case precedent was a difficult and time
consuming task, requiring people to search through print copies of case law, or to
pay for access to commercial online databases. Today, the internet has opened
up a host of case law search possibilities, and many sources offer free access to
case law. Doing a case law search may be as easy as entering specific keywords
or citation into a search engine. There are, however, certain websites that
facilitate case law searches, including:
 Google Scholar – a vast database of state and federal case law, which is
searchable by keyword, phrase, or citations. Google Scholar also allows
searchers to specify which level of court cases to search, from federal, to
specific states.
 Justia – a comprehensive resource for federal and state statutory laws, as
well as case law at both the federal and state levels.
 Public Library of Law – offers access to cases from the U.S. Supreme
court since 1754, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal since 1951, and from
each state since 1997. In addition to allowing users to search by keyword,
court, and case, the website provides tutorials on “Finding a Case,” and
“Searching Statutes.”
In addition, the Law Library of Congress offers a great deal of information on
statutes, case law, and other legal issues. This includes a Guide to Law Online.

Dissecting Case Law Citations

Finding a relevant case law ruling, and inserting a reference to that case into a
current legal pleading, is not enough to direct the court to the specific issue. In
many instances, court rulings in the U.S. deal with multiple issues, and include
drawn-out descriptions of how the court, especially an appellate or supreme
court, came to its conclusion. Because of this, simply citing the case is more
likely to annoy a judge than help the party’s case. Think of it as calling someone
to tell them you’ve found their lost phone, then telling them you live in such-and-
such neighborhood, without actually giving them an address. Driving around the
neighborhood trying to find their phone is likely to be more frustrating than it’s
worth.
For legal professionals, there are specific rules regarding case citation, which
vary depending on the court and jurisdiction hearing the case. Proper case law
citation in a state court may not be appropriate, or even accepted, at the U.S.
Supreme Court. Generally speaking, proper case citation includes the names of
the parties to the original case, the court in which the case was heard, the date it
was decided, and the book in which it is recorded. Different citation requirements
may include italicized or underlined text, and certain specific abbreviations.
In the United States, people are not required to hire an attorney to represent
them in either civil or criminal matters. Laypeople navigating the legal system on
their own can remember one rule of thumb when it comes to referring to case law
or precedent in court documents: be as specific as possible, leading the court,
not only to the case, but to the section and paragraph containing the pertinent
information. The Cornell Law School website offers a variety of information on
legal topics, including citation of case law, and even provides a video tutorial on
case citation.

Case Law Example in Civil Lawsuit

Against Child Services
In 1996, the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services (“DCFS”) removed a
12-year old boy from his home to protect him from the horrible physical and
sexual abuse he had suffered in his home, and to prevent him from abusing other
children in the home. The boy was placed in an emergency foster home, and was
later shifted around within the foster care system. The DCFS social worker in
charge of the boy’s case had the boy made a ward of DCFS, and in her 6-month
report to the court, the worker elaborated on the boy’s sexual abuse history, and
stated that she planned to move him from a facility into a “more homelike
setting.” The court approved her plan.
In 1997, the boy was placed into the home of John and Jane Roe as a foster
child. Although the couple had two young children of their own at home, the
social worker did not tell them about the boy’s history of both being abused, and
abusing other children. When she made her report to the court the following day,
the worker reported the boy’s placement in the Roe’s home, but didn’t mention
that the couple had young children. She did note that the boy still needed
extensive therapy in order to cope with his abusive past, and “to reach the point
of being safe with other children.” The boy was receiving counseling with a DCFS
therapist. Again, the court approved of the actions.
The Roes accompanied the boy to his therapy sessions. When they were told of
the boy’s past, they asked if their children were safe with him in their home. The
therapist assured them that they had nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, that
was not true. Just two months after being placed with the Roe family, the Roe’s
son told his parents that the boy had molested him. The boy was arrested two
days later, and admitted to having sexually molested the couple’s son several
times.
On June 16, 1999, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the boy by a guardian ad
litem, against DCFS, the social worker, and the therapist. A similar lawsuit was
also filed on behalf of the Roe’s victimized son by a different guardian ad litem.
The defendants petitioned the trial court for a dismissal based on absolute
immunity, as they were all acting in their jobs with DCFS. If granted absolute
immunity, the parties would not only be protected from liability in the matter, but
could not be answerable in any way for their actions. When the court delayed
making such a ruling, the defendants took their request to the appellate court.
In determining whether employees of DCFS are entitled to absolute immunity,
which is generally held by certain government officials acting within the scope of
their employment, the appellate court referred to case law previously rendered on
similar cases. The appellate court determined that the trial court had not erred in
its decision to allow more time for information to be gathered by the parties –
specifically regarding the issue of absolute immunity.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

 Binding Precedent – A rule or principle established by a court, which other
courts are obligated to follow.
 Lateral Jurisdiction – A court at the same level.
 Persuasive Authority – Prior court rulings that may be consulted in deciding
a current case. It may be used to guide the court, but is not binding
precedent.
 Statutory Law is the term used to define written laws, usually enacted by a legislative body.
Statutory laws vary from regulatory or administrative laws that are passed by executive
agencies, and common law, or the law created by prior court decisions.
 Unlike common law, which is subject to interpretation in its application by the court, statutory
laws are generally strictly construed by courts. Strict construction means that courts are
generally not able to read between the liens of a statute in order to liberalize its application.
Rather, they will be bound by its express terms.
 As legislative enactments, statutory laws follow the usual process of legislation. A bill is
proposed in the legislature and voted upon. If approved, it passes to the executive branch
(either a governor at the state level or the president at the federal level). If the executive
signs the bill it passes into law as a statute. If the executive fails or refuses to sign the bill, it
can be vetoed and sent back to the legislature. In most instances, if the legislature again
passes the bill by a set margin it becomes a statute.

Statutes are also recorded, or codified, in writing and published. Statutory law usually becomes
effective on a set date written into the bill. Statutes can be overturned by a later legislative
enactment or if found unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.

What is Statutory Law?

Statutory law is law that’s written by a legislative body. It’s law that a government
deliberately creates through elected legislators and an official legislative process. It’s up to
the judiciary to interpret and enforce statutory law, but the judiciary can’t create statutory
law.
Laws created by statute are often codified. That means they’re all put together in one place
and given numbers for reference. For example, the United States Code is the indexed
collection of U.S. law. States have their own collections of statutes and codes.
What’s not statutory law?
Statutory law is law that’s purposefully created by a legislature and made into
law. Representatives contemplate what they think the law should be. They spend time
drafting, editing and passing the law. To understand statutory law, it’s helpful to understand
what it’s not:
Common law

Common law is law that a judiciary creates over time. It’s not passed by a legislative body.
Instead, case by case, the judiciary determines what they think are sound principles of law.

When they apply these principles, one at a time, in real cases, common law develops. This
isn’t statutory law. Statutory law is created in one act by a legislative body. It isn’t piecemeal
like common law. Rather, statutory law either exists, or it doesn’t.

Administrative law

Administrative law is the body of law that’s created by executive agencies. Legislators
authorize the agencies to exist. They allow the agencies to make their own rules in their
area of governance.

For example, if a state has a department of natural resources or a department of fish and
game, they might authorize the department to create their own laws and rules about hunting
and fishing. These rules have the force of law, and they can even be misdemeanor or felony
offenses. However, they’re not statutory law. Statutory law comes from a legislative body
rather than from executive administrators or bureaucrats.

A body of law can be both statutory and common law

In some cases, an area of law develops through common law. Then, lawmakers come
along and add to the law through statutes. They may not completely override or even write
out the current state of the common law. Instead, they may just clarify it and add to it.

One place where this commonly occurs among states is in tort actions stemming from
negligence. The principles of negligence develop through common law. The courts, through
their opinions, make the rules for what a litigant needs to prove in order to prevail on a claim
for negligence. The basic elements for a negligence claim are that the defendant owed a
duty to the plaintiff, they breached that duty, the breach caused the plaintiff harm and the
plaintiff had damages.
Lawmakers in individual states often want to make minor adjustments to the doctrine of
negligence. They may want to discuss how comparative or contributory negligence affects a
plaintiff’s claim. They may want to define when it’s appropriate for a jury to award punitive
damages. Lawmakers may want to codify product liability in order to remove the negligence
requirement to make it easier for a plaintiff to seek recovery.
When lawmakers make these changes to their state laws, they usually don’t write down the
entire negligence law. Instead, they just state what they’re clarifying or changing. For
example, Nevada’s law 41.141 discusses comparative negligence. It doesn’t list the
elements of negligence. It only states how comparative negligence applies to a case, and it
gives a jury instruction on the issue.

How the courts interpret statutory law

When the courts set out to interpret a statute, they start by looking at the plain language of
the law. If the law is clear, the courts conclude that the law means what it says. The courts
presume that the legislature intends to give meaning to every word in the law. They reject
the idea that the legislature would have put in extra words that don’t mean anything.

The courts try to follow the intent of the legislature. To determine legislative intent, they
might look at prior drafts or even the debate surrounding passage of the law. When a word
is ambiguous, they look at its context. In criminal matters, when there’s an ambiguity, the
accused gets the benefit of the doubt.

In some circumstances, a court might invalidate a statute. They might find that it’s
unconstitutional. In that event, they might throw out the entire law, or they might invalidate
only the parts that they decide are unconstitutional.

Who can create statutory law?

All levels of government can create statutory law. It comes from federal, state and even
local governments. A government can make a statute that applies in its jurisdiction and to
lower levels of government. For example, the federal government can make a law that
applies everywhere in the United States. The states can make laws that apply to only their
states.
Cities, townships and other municipalities can make laws that apply within their borders. A
municipality can’t invalidate a state or federal law. Likewise, a state can’t invalidate a federal
law.

Who practices statutory law?

Most attorneys work with statutory law in their career. Whatever their area of practice,
attorneys must know the laws that apply. If you practice in finance, torts, criminal, patent or
any other type of law, you’re going to encounter some statutes that apply. Every attorney
must know the statutes that apply to their area of specialization.

Because no two cases are ever the same, there’s a good chance that you’re going to
encounter a time where a law isn’t clear given the facts of your case. The law might be too
vague to cover your specific situation. You may have a situation that hasn’t ever come up
before. You’ll have to argue to the judge why the court should interpret the statute your way.
In this respect, all lawyers should be prepared to practice statutory law, because there’s a
good chance that it will come up at some point.

For lawyers wanting to specialize in statutory law, there’s work to be done at all levels but
particularly at the highest levels of the courts. Cases that involve statutory interpretation
often move through appeals to the highest levels of state and federal courts. Statutory
lawyers are often lawyers who focus on appellate work. The courts also need statutory
lawyers to work on research and briefing the issues in order to help the judges do their
work.

Statutory lawyers also work in the legislative branch. When a legislative body creates a new
law, it must be written carefully in order to have the intended meaning. Legislators may or
may not be lawyers themselves, and most state and federal legislative bodies have
attorneys on staff in order to help with the drafting process. Attorneys who know how
statutory interpretation works can provide a valuable service for the legislature in helping
them create laws that are going to be upheld and interpreted in the way that they intend. A
municipal government may not have a staff attorney, but they may contract with an attorney
that specializes in government law in order to complete this work.

Why Become a Statutory Lawyer

Statutory law is a great choice for lawyers who like to write. Attorneys who draft laws must
pour over them in detail. They get to fret over a single word, the tense of a verb and
whether to say may or shall.

Lawyers who argue to the court for statutory interpretation also do a great deal of writing.
They must write detailed briefs in order to make their case to the court. Oral arguments are
usually only a small part of making the case. Writing down the arguments for judges and
their staff to review and consider is the most important part of bringing a successful appeal.
For lawyers who always enjoyed their high school English classes, statutory law can be an
enjoyable practice area.

Words have meaning

Statutory law is based on the premise that each word has an important meaning. Statutory
lawyers must learn the laws that apply to their field. When a law is unclear, they must either
challenge it or argue for a favorable interpretation. For attorneys who can write clearly and
who enjoy language, statutory law affords a challenging and rewarding legal practice

Case Law Statutory Law

Creation of new laws New laws are
issued by various
government
agencies.

Operational Level Substantive

Also known as Written law

Nature Prescriptive

Origin Government or
legislature

Definition Statutory law is

written laws
originating from
Case Law Statutory Law
municipality or
legislature to be
followed by the
citizens.

Introduction (from Wikipedia) written laws,

usually enacted
by a legislative
body. it varys from
regulatory or
administrative
laws that are
passed by
executive
agencies, and
common law, or
the law created by
prior court
decisions.