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.
|State||Citation||Description/Statute Name||Question||Brief answer||Language from the opinion||When does the case apply?|
|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 more
this 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.)
|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 more
his 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).
|Minnesota||Mr. Richard T. Jessen Minn. Op. Atty. Gen. 1025B 1981 WL 157319||Minnesota-Attorney General opinion||Other applicable oppinions||Municipalities and towns are entitled to at least half of the funds from fines and fees collected by the county clerk||
The crucial feature in the context of this statute is that, unlike the large number of special and limited purpose government units, a municipality, or a city, is a general+ See more
purpose government unit. For example, the municipality is authorized by a wide range of statutes to engage in a variety of functions, including providing police protection and protecting the public health, safety, welfare and Morals. See; Minn. Stat. chs. 410 to 472 (1980). Review of the various local government units reveals that a town is the unit most similar to a municipality. To some extent, towns also possess traditional police powers and authority to provide law enforcement services. Minn. Stat. §§ 365.15; 367.03, subd. 3 (1980). Indeed, numerous towns are given the powers and authority of a statutory city. Minn. Stat. § 368.011 (1980). We therefore conclude that while the county is entitled to one-half of all such fines or penalties, the municipality or town in which a statutory violation is committed is entitled to the other half of such funds.
|Minnesota||Mr. D. Scott Ballou Minn. Op. Atty. Gen. 1025-B 1980 WL 119583||Minnesota-Attorney General opinion||In most circumstances, the allocation of funds collected by fines and fees is based on the geographic location of the offense that gave rise to the fine or fee,||
The manner of disposition of fines and fees is based on the geographic location of the offense giving rise to the fee or fine and not on the law enforcement+ See more
agency responsible for issuing the citation. The only exceptions provided by the statute occur when the Minnesota Highway Patrol issues the citation. See Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 5 (1978), or where the fines or fees were collected prior to August 1, 1975, see Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 6 (1978). However, the fines and fees referred to in Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 5 (1978) are limited to certain parking fines, which must be paid over in full each month to the municipality in which the parking violation occurred, and fines and penalties collected as a result of violations of a state statute, or ordinance, charter provision, rules or regulation of a city must be equally divided on a monthly basis. In addition, monies collected as a result of a violation of an ordinance promulgated by a town board of supervisors or board of county commissioners shall be retained by the county treasurer pursuant to the last sentence of Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 5 (1978).
|Wisconsin||1995 WL 264119 (Wis.A.G.)||Forfeitures||What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines?||Unclear with regard to fines and fees, but uniformity regarding the recovery of forfeitures.||
Section 799.01 provides in part: (b) Forfeitures. Actions to recover forfeitures except as a different procedure is prescribed in chs. 23, 66, 345 and 778, or elsewhere, and such different procedures+ See more
shall apply equally to the state, a county or a municipality regardless of any limitation contained therein.