Final answer:
Common law is characterized by judicial interpretation and reliance on precedents, making it flexible for case-by-case application. Statutes, however, do not derive from judicial rulings and are meant to be uniformly and directly applied without referencing past decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Common law is judge-made and precedential. Whereas statutes have neither judicial authorship nor binding precedent. Common law evolves from the decisions made by judges in court cases and is grounded in historical rulings.
This legal principle is characterized by the notion that courts should follow previous decisions to ensure consistent and predictable outcomes. In contrast, statutes are formal written laws enacted by legislative bodies; these laws do not stem from judicial rulings and do not necessarily reference past decisions.
In common law systems, judge-made laws are significant because of their reliance on past decisions, which provide a framework for interpreting laws in new cases. This system of governance allows for flexibility and adaptability, catering to the unique circumstances of each case while adhering to the concept of stare decisis, which means to stand by things decided.
On the other hand, statutes are explicit legal codes that are meant to be applied uniformly, leaving limited room for interpretation and deviation based on precedents. They are designed to offer a clear and direct application of the law for various situations regulated by the legislative institutions.