Statutes v Common Law

Common-law rule (default)

Courts may bar wrongdoers based on public-policy maxims (e.g., "no one should profit from his own wrong") unless a statute displaces the common law.

Statute controls when directly on point (Enactment Force)

Statutes bind courts to the categories and words enacted; courts may not expand or rewrite statutory terms—even to reach morally obvious results.

Common law evolves by analogy (Gravitational Force)

Precedents "pull" courts to extend or narrow rules by reasoning from principles; judges can modify outcomes to prevent injustice.

Statutory silence ≠ invitation to fill gaps

Silence may reflect compromise; courts cannot add omitted categories (e.g., "manslaughter") unless consistent with text.

When statute and common law coexist

If the statute isn't exclusive, common-law principles may still operate (e.g., Shrader).

Key distinction for exam

Statutes = rigid rule-following. Common law = principled analogy + moral maxims.

Fillmore v. Metropolitan Life

Beneficiary who intentionally kills insured is barred by public policy ("no profit from own wrong").

Deem v. Millikin

Murderer still inherits because statute's plain text had no exception—court refuses to add moral limits.

Riggs v. Palmer

Court blocks murderer from inheriting under will to avoid absurdity; reads statutes in light of moral maxims.

Wadsworth v. Siek

Manslaughterer inherits because slayer statute only mentioned murder; court refuses to extend statute.

Shrader v. Equitable Life

Even without conviction, court applies common-law slayer rule to bar killer; statute = floor, not ceiling.

Legislative Amendment to §2105.19

Ohio expands statute to cover manslaughter + all financial benefits; legislature fixes moral gap courts could not.

Identify Source of Law (Statute or Common Law?)

Hypo must begin by marking whether rule comes from statute (→ strict text) or common law (→ analogy + moral maxims). Controls interpretive freedom.

Apply Enactment Force (Statutory Rigidity)

If a statute lists "murder," court cannot extend to "manslaughter" (Wadsworth). Judges cannot rewrite the legislature's categories.

Apply Gravitational Force (Common-Law Analogy)

When governing rule is common-law (e.g., Filmore, Riggs), court may extend maxim "no profit from wrongdoing" to related contexts (inheritance, insurance).

Moral Maxims as Background Principles

Use Filmore/Riggs to argue courts avoid absurd results unless statute blocks them. Useful in hypo where legislature left gap.

Statutory Silence and Legislative Compromise

Silence may reflect political bargain; court should not fill silence unless common law still operates (Shrader).

Legislative Response (Statute as Policy Correction)

If legislature later amends statute (as after Siek), this shows judiciary could not originally reach result via interpretation.

Why Statutes v. Common Law Matters (Widen)

Shows tension between: Formalism (Deem, Siek) → rule-bound statutory obedience vs. Equitable Purposivism (Riggs, Filmore) → advancing justice + preventing absurdity.

How to decide outcome in a new hypo

If statute applies → follow text like Wadsworth. If statute incomplete → apply common law like Shrader. If no statute → use Riggs/Filmore maxims to bar unjust enrichment.