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.
4 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | ability to pay | Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? | See Case Law: Liming v. Damos, 979 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio 2012) | Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | Ohio-Attorney General opinion | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? | See Case Law: State v. Meyer, 706 N.E.2d 378, 380 (1997); Ohio Rev. Code § 2947.14 | ability to pay | Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | 2012 Ohio Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2012-039 (Nov. 14, 2012) | fines and fees | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? | County courts can use their fining power to fund various projects, programs, and services of the court |
Although a county court has authority to use a special projects fund established under R.C. 1907.24(B)(1) to finance community service programs, nothing in the Ohio Constitution, Revised Code, Ohio Rules + See moreof Criminal Procedure, or Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio directs the manner in which a county court may use moneys in a special projects fund to provide such financing. This means that the judges of a county court have the discretion and implied power to use special projects fund moneys in whatever manner is reasonably necessary to make community service programs available to persons who are convicted of, or plead guilty to, a misdemeanor.
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | Normal G. Angus, Informal Opinion No. 87-06, 1987 WL 272559, at *2-3 (July 15, 1987) | Informal Opinion No. 87-06 |
Are the same procedural protections that are required in criminal proceedings required in civil collection/contempt proceedings arising from criminal justice debt when those proceedings may result in incarceration? What if + See morethe proceedings may only result in additional fines or non-incarceration penalties?
|
Unclear. Bail forfeiture proceedings do not provide the same safeguards. I am unsure if this can be extrapolated to collection proceedings. |
Bail forfeiture actions are civil in nature; criminal procedure safeguards are not implicated
.In comparing the two approaches to nonappearancebail forfeiture versus contemptit becomes readily apparent that the contempt process presents + See morefewer obstacles of statutory construction and would be procedurally easier to effectuate.
|
Enforcement |