Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
Case Law
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
When does this apply
| State | Citation | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Georgia | Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699 (1942) | Does the states separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? |
No, Statute authorizing counties and municipal corporations to construct revenue producing undertakings, and in anticipation of the collection of revenue therefrom to issue certificates payable solely from such revenue, does + See morenot violate constitutional provision limiting the powers of counties and municipalities in relation to contracting debts
|
neither the act nor the ordinance violates the constitutional provision above referred to. | Revenue flow |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Georgia | Messenger v. State, 72 S.E.2d 460 (1952) | Other applicable caselaw | The inhibition of the constitution against imprisonment for debt applies to any and all such imprisonment, irrespective of the period of its duration or the means whereby it is accomplished | the Constitution of Georgia forbids imprisonment for debt | Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Georgia | State v. Higgins, 326 S.E.2d 728, (Ga. 1985) | Other applicable caselaw | invalidating an income tax law that authorized punishment solely for the nonpayment of income taxes |
[A] criminal provision drawn in terms of a wilful failure to pay tax would be an entirely different matter, as it would catch the intentional tax evader without at the + See moresame time ensnaring the hapless pauper.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Georgia | Johnson v. State, 707 S.E.2d 373, 374 | Other applicable caselaw |
Before revoking a defendant's probation based solely on the failure to pay fines, fees, or surchagres costs, the trial court is required to make a finding as to defendant's wilfulness, + See moreand if it concluded that defendant was not at fault, the court is required to consider other punishment alternatives.
|
"Although we do not interfere with a revocation of probation unless the trial court has manifestly abused its discretion, we conclude here that such an abuse occurred. In the instant + See morecase, the trial court made no express or written findings as to the reasons for Johnson's failure to pay or as to the inadequacy of alternative punishments. Rather, it inquired only as to Johnson's fitness to work before deciding to revoke Johnson's probation. Therefore, because the trial court made this determination without making the findings required by Bearden, it committed reversible error." Johnson v. State, 707 S.E.2d 373, 374(citing Bearden v. Georgia, 460 U.S. 660 (1983))
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | Neilson v. Dennett, 450 P.2d 93, 95 (Utah 1969) |
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 morethe 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).
|
ability to pay should be determined at the time order is imposed to pay money. |
However, in this case it was incumbent upon the trial court to find that the appellant at the time the order was made had the ability to pay over the + See moremoney and thereafter refused to do so before the judge could hold the appellant in contempt for failure to pay
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | State v. Vincent, 883 P.2d 278, 283 (Utah 1994) | Other applicable case law |
A defendant has the initial burden of establishing indigence. The defendant must establish that payment would place an undue hardship on the defendant's ability to provide for the basic necessities + See moreof life
|
[T]he defendants bear the initial burden of establishing their indigence. Generally speaking, a person is indigent for purposes of sections 77321 and 2 if payments for counsel or transcripts would + See moreplace an undue hardship on the defendant's ability to provide the basic necessities of life for the defendant and the defendant's family.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | State v. Haston, 811 P.2d 929, 936 (Utah Ct. App. 1991), rev'd, 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) | Other applicable case law |
Imposition of fine and the amount of the fine is left to the discretion of the court. A judge need not give an explanation for the fine he or she + See moreimposes.
|
Imposition of a fine, and the accompanying mandatory surcharge, is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. Utah Code Ann. §§ 6363a1 (1989), 763301.5(5) (1990). No particular + See moreexplanation needs to be made by the trial court.
|
Fines and fees |