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 | 1990 Ohio Op. Atty. Gen. No. 90-088 (Nov. 14 1990) | Fines and fees | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? | Indigency should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not through set standards |
A gleaning of the aforementioned authorities clearly reveals that there are no set criteria for determining whether an individual is indigent. Rather, the preferred approach is to determine indigency on + See morea case by case basis so as to accord attention to any and all factors tending to indicate an individual's financial condition. . . . [T]he the criteria for determining . . . whether an individual is indigent, include the ready availability of real or personal property owned; employment benefits; pensions; annuities; social security; unemployment compensation; inheritances; number and age of dependents; outstanding debts, obligations and liabilities; and any other relevant considerations concerning the financial condition of an individual.
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | Fines and fees | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? |
This has not been considered by courts or the State AG. But the Ohio Supreme Court issues "bench cards" guiding the lower courts on how to implement fines. See, e.g., + See moreThe Supreme Court of Ohio, Office of Judicial Services, Collection of Fines and Court Costs (2014)
|
Revenue flow | |
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
|
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 moreshall apply equally to the state, a county or a municipality regardless of any limitation contained therein.
|
Revenue flow |