Keyword search across all of the laws in the states. Subject-area tabs above allow you to narrow results. Click the advanced search for further refinement.
Every law can be saved to the Reform Builder
Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.
6 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Mississippi | 1981 WL 39784 (Miss.A.G.); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-20 (2) | Mississippi-Attorney General opinion | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? | apparently not, because judges rule on indigency on a case-by-case basis |
In the event an indigent is unable to pay his fine, a justice court judge may rely upon Section 99-19-20 of the Mississippi Code, 1972 , as amended, as an + See morealternative procedure in working with indigents.
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Mississippi | 1994 WL 497828 (Miss.A.G.) | Mississippi-Attorney General opinion | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | Any kind of fine or fee, at least for municipalities. |
Section 21-17-l, Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended, provides that a “. . .municipality may contract with a private attorney or privatecollection agent or agency to collect any type of delinquent payment owed to the municipality including, but + See morenot limited to, past due feesand fines.”
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
Mississippi | 1996 WL 224005 (Miss.A.G.) | Mississippi-Attorney General opinion | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? | The court has the authority to impose "reasonable" fees for costs incurred by the court system. | In response, see the Primeaux opinion which states that Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-23-7(11) allows a municipal court to impose reasonable costs of court which could include a service of process fee. | Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Mississippi | 1996 WL 369442 (Miss.A.G.) | Mississippi-Attorney General opinion | Other applicable opinions | Court costs that are statutorily mandated must be collected from defendant by the country clerk, whether a judge decides to impose them or not. |
In response, we direct your attention to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-73 (Supp. 1995), which sets forth the standard state monetary assessments for criminal violations. Specifically, subsection (7) states:
If a + See morefine or other penalty imposed is suspended, in whole or in part, such suspension shall not affect the state assessment under this section. No state assessment imposed under the provisions of this section may be suspended or reduced by the court.
Based on the above quoted statute, the state assessment court costs are collected by the clerk of the court regardless of whether the judge imposes them or not. There are several statutorily imposed fees or costs which are to be collected regardless of whether the judge imposes them or not, e.g. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 19-7-31 allows the boards of supervisors to impose a court cost for the support of a public county law library in their respective counties. This court cost is automatically assessed regardless of whether the judge imposes it or not. Also, upon conviction for writing a bad check, Section 97-19-67(4) directs the court to impose a fee in the amount of up to 85% of the face value of a bad check in addition to any other fine, fee, cost or penalty imposed by the judge. Section 37-26-9(4) imposes a supplemental court education and training cost in all criminal cases where a fine of $10 or more is imposed by the judge.
The general rule is that if the cost is statutorily imposed, there is no need for the judge to impose the cost. However, from time to time, a court cost may be incurred in which there is no statutory imposition. In such a case it is within the judge's discretion to impose such a court cost on the defendant.
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
North Carolina | N.C.A.G. Mar. 21, 1996 | RE: Advisory Opinion; Exceptions to Statutory Exemptions for Execution of Judgment on Criminal Restitution Orders | Other applicable opinions | North Carolina is not barred from structuring a program to collect costs; however, the state's initiatives, must be narrowly drawn so as to avoid chilling the indigent's right to counsel |
North Carolina [is not] barred from structuring a program to collect the amount it is owed from a financially-able defendant through reasonable and fairly administered procedures. The state's initiatives in + See morethis area naturally must be narrowly drawn to avoid either chilling the indigent's exercise of the right to counsel, or creating discriminating terms of repayment based solely on the defendant's poverty. Beyond these threshold requirements, however, the State has wide latitude to shape its attorneys fees recoupment or restitution program along the lines it deems most appropriate for achieving lawful state objectives. Id. at 123-124. (emphasis added.)
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
North Carolina | N.C.A.G. June 10, 1980 | Criminal Law and Procedure; Sentences; Probation; Restitution; Bankruptcy Proceedings | Person who received illegal gains as a part of criminal activity may not discharge legal financial obligations in bankruptcy |
It would thus be against our statute and public policy to permit a defendant who has received illegal gains and who was ordered to make restitution as a condition of + See morehis sentence to vacate such conditions by a discharge in bankruptcy." People v. Mosesson, 356 N.Y.S. 2d 483, 484-85, (1974). See also: People on Inf. of Anerbach v. Topping Bros., 359 N.Y.S. 2d 985 (1974).
|