Under common law, when statutes were absent, how did courts determine handling of cases?

• A. They codified solutions.
• B. They relied on international law.
• C. They deferred to executive orders.
• D. They looked to England to guide decisions.

Answer: (C)

Under common law, rules are built up from prior decisions rather than from statutes. When there was no statute to govern a case, judges leaned on the English legal tradition—the source of the common law—using established precedent and reasoning that had been tested in earlier cases. This continuity with English authority provided consistency and predictability in rulings, since the growing body of common law depended on long-standing principles carried over from England. Executive orders are modern tools of the executive branch and do not supply the binding, long‑standing rules that come from precedent; they weren’t the source courts relied on in the absence of statutes. International law typically does not control domestic disputes unless adopted by the legislature, so it wouldn’t serve as the primary guide in this context.