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 cases that meet your search criteria.
|State||Citation||Question||Brief answer||Language from the opinion||When does the case apply?|
|Missouri||Spencer v. Basinger, 562 S.W.2d 350, 353 (Mo. 1978)||
Under state constitutional or statutory law, what are the minimum requirements for a constitutionally adequate ability-to-pay determination? Include any guidance about the substantive standards to apply, the burden of proof,+ See more
the sources of information that should be considered, and the timing of the determination (i.e. before imposition, before enforcement action, only if incarceration is threatened).
|After a prima facie showing of indigency has been made, an individual may not be incarcerated for nonpayment of fine and costs||
A prima facie showing of indigency has been made. Under such circumstances petitioner may not be confined further at this time for nonpayment of fine and costs. See Hendrix v.+ See more
Lark, 482 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. banc 1972). This is not to suggest that those who neglect or refuse to pay a fine may not be incarcerated for their refusal so to do within the constitutional standards described in Hendrix.
|Missouri||Hendrix v. Lark, 482 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Mo. 1972)||Other applicable caselaw||Prisoner's incarceration to satisfy payment of fines and costs levied upon her without giving indigent prisoner option of paying the same by installments denied her the equal protection of law.||
St. Louis must provide indigent defendants an opportunity to pay fines in reasonable installments and that portion of Sec. 773.070 of the Revised Code of the city providing the court+ See more
shall not stay the payment of any fine and calling for its execution, i.e., immediate imprisonment in lieu of payment, *429 is unconstitutional under the above decisions.
|Missouri||Davis v. City of Charleston, Mo., 635 F.Supp. 197, 198-199 (1986)||upon raising inference that poverty is reason for non-payment rather than contempt, defendant is entitled to hearing on issue of indigency||
As stated in this Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 28, 1986: It must be remembered that the remedy § 560.031 intends is not an imprisonment for non-payment of fine+ See more
as such, but a penalty by contempt of court for the failure to obey—either intentionally or by want of good-faith effort to comply—the sentence of the court.
|Ability to pay|