Final answer:
Appellate court opinions exist between common law and statutory law, interpreting statutory provisions while considering common law principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
The written opinions of appellate courts have been described as halfway between common law and statutory law. Common law, also known as case law or judge-made law, is a type of law developed by judges through decisions in court cases, largely based on precedent. On the other side, statutory law is created by legislative bodies and set out in statutes. Appellate court opinions, such as those from the courts of appeals, contribute to the body of common law by interpreting statutory law and prior decisions to apply legal principles to the facts of a specific case. In doing so, appellate courts shape the common law with their written opinions, while aiming to adhere to the statutes enacted by legislatures.
Common Law
Common law demonstrates the adaptability of the law as new decisions are made. It is unique in that it allows for the law to develop incrementally as each case is decided, based on the principles and precedents set in earlier judicial decisions. This system relies heavily on the doctrine of stare decisis, meaning that courts look to past, similar cases to guide their decisions.
Statutory Law
Conversely, statutory law is the formal written law of a country or state, explicitly passed by the legislature. It provides more predictability than common law because it sets specific rules that must be followed until the statute is amended or repealed by the legislature or deemed unconstitutional by the courts. However, judges still play a crucial role in interpreting these statutes, especially when they are ambiguous or silent on specific issues.
Appellate court decisions often involve a combination of interpreting statutory provisions while also considering broader legal principles derived from common law, thus existing 'halfway' between the concrete world of statutes and the evolving landscape of common law.