Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.

4 Results

Export results to Excel

State Citation Description/Statute Name Question Brief answer Language from the opinion When does the case apply?
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
a 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
The Supreme Court of Ohio, Office of Judicial Services, Collection of Fines and Court Costs (2014)
Revenue flow
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

South Carolina 1987 S.C. Op. Att'y Gen. 255 (1987) Bearden Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? Not answered - however, cannot implement a surcharge if defendant fails to pay fee
In the circumstances where an indigent fails to comply with the schedule of payments established by the court and the court determines that the indigent has wilfully refused to pay
+ See more
or failed to make bona fide efforts to pay, the court is authorized to imprison the defendant for contempt. As provided in Section 17–25–350, where part of the fine has been paid, the imprisonment cannot exceed the remaining pro rata portion of the sentence. I am unaware of any basis for a court to impose a fine in addition to the sentence originally imposed.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Illinois 1992 WL 469752 (Ill.A.G.); 1985 Ill. Atty. Gen. Op. 166 (Ill.A.G.), 1985 WL 68990; 1978 Ill. Atty. Gen. Op. 175 (Ill.A.G.), 1978 WL 17642 Illinois-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? Revenue flow