Statutory refers to something that is related to a formal law or a statute, and non-statutory is essentially another term for common law. If something is statutory, it is based on laws or statutes. If something is non-statutory, it is based on customs, precedents or previous court decisions.Know More
One of the most commonly used instances of the word statutory is in the phrase statutory rape. This phrase refers to a consensual sexual act between an adult and a minor. The inclusion of the word statutory in this phrase refers to the fact that the encounter is considered rape under the law. However, it is not necessarily rape in the sense of being forced to perform sexual acts against one's will.
Another case in which the words statutory and non-statutory are used is in the discussion of stocks. If someone purchases a stock through an employee stock program or an incentive stock option (ISO), he is buying a statutory stock. If he purchases stocks through another entity or program, he is buying non-statutory stocks. Both statutory and non-statutory stocks are taxed as capital gains, but the way the IRS values these stocks is different.
Although the word statutory is still used regularly, the word non-statutory is not used as often, as most people simply use the phrase common law.Learn more about Law
Statutory rights, also referred to as civil rights, are rights that are defined by the laws of the place in which they are granted to citizens, according to US Legal. For example, the rights to vote or hold property are considered statutory rights since they would not exist without a social structure in place that allows for the institutions of democratic voting and the holding of private property.Full Answer >
The four main sources of American law are statutes and ordinances, Constitutional law, administrative law and common law. Treaties are also considered a source of law. Most of U.S. law consists primarily of state law, as regulations and bills often differ between states.Full Answer >
The dissenting opinions in Miranda v. Arizona stated that the rights granted to suspects in the majority decision had no support in the U.S. Constitution or English common law. The dissenting justices felt the court was overreacting and were concerned that its decision would compromise the efficiency of interrogation in law enforcement.Full Answer >
The idea of being innocent until proven guilty does not appear in any of the Constitutional amendments, but is, in fact, a part of common law. It is not a right granted by the Constitution.Full Answer >