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?|
|Arkansas||Opinion No. 96-208||Imprisonment for failure to pay - double jeopardy||Other applicable opinions||
No, it does not constitute double jeopardy to imprison a person for failure to pay a fine when the person has already had his probation revoked, and has served a+ See more
term of imprisonment, for failing to satisfy, as a condition of his probation, his obligation to pay the fine -- if the person is not indigent.
"such a course of action is authorized by law and does not violate U.S. Const. amend. 5 or Ark. Const. art. 2,+ See more
§ 8, the constitutional provisionsprohibiting the placing of a person in jeopardy more than once for the same offense."
|Arkansas||Opinion No. 2008-153||district court discretion to refuse probation sentence||
Q2) Does a circuit or district court have discretion to refuse to sentence a defendant to probation pursuant to a plea agreement where the only stated reason for rejection of+ See more
probation is due to an indigent defendant's inability to pay court costs prior to the entry of the plea of guilty? Answer) No
I believe a court's refusal to consider probation as a sentencing option purely because of a defendant's indigency -- which is what your question appears to contemplate -- might well+ See more
be subject to challenge as a violation of the Equal Protection guarantees set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in article 2, §§ 2 and 3 of the Arkansas Constitution.
|Ability to pay|
|Oregon||OP-6203 (1988)||Oregon-Attorney General opinion||What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees?||Fines and fees must fall within the limits imposed in the state legislature's max-min scheme||It is axiomatic that state officers may administer public funds only in the manner authorized or directed by the Oregon Constitution or controlling statutes.||Fines and fees|
|Oregon||OP-6203 (1988)||Oregon-Attorney General opinion||What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines?||The Chief Justice in particular has wide latitude in determining these rules||
The Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court is the administrative head of the Judicial Department. ORS 1.002(1). ‘The Chief Justice shall exercise administrative authority and supervision over the courts+ See more
of this state consistent with applicable provisions of law * * *.’ Id. Pursuant to that authority, the Chief Justice may, inter alia, ‘issue orders appropriate to that exercise.’ ORS 1.002(1)(a). Accordingly, these statutes grant to the Chief Justice the power to require judges and clerks to comply with statutes that govern the imposition, collection, and disposition of fines and penalty assessments. See also ORS 1.025 (governing duties with regard to matters relating to the administration of justice).
|Fines and fees|