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?|
|Ohio||City of Alliance v. Kelly, 548 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)||Other applicable caselaw||Contempt proceedings may not be used to incarcerate people for non-payment of fines. A person may only be sentenced pursuant to the procedural safeguards provided in Section 2947.14||
The appellee in this action urges that we accept the trial court's characterization of these proceedings as contempt for failure to obey an order of the court pursuant to R.C.+ See more
2705.02. However, appellee does not suggest precisely which order appellant was charged with disobeying. We find that the court should have recognized that this case invoked the *134 procedures required under R.C. 2947.14 for committing an offender to jail for failure to pay a fine. This statute and its predecessor1were designed by the legislature to provide a method for collecting a fine from one who is unwilling to pay.
|Ohio||Strattman v. Studt, 20 Ohio St. 2d 95, 95 (1969)||Court costs and fees are civil, not criminal, obligations and may be collected only by the methods provided for the collection of civil judgments||
The duty to pay court costs is a civil obligation arising from an implied contract. Obligations arising upon implied contracts and judgments *96 thereon are debts, within the purview of+ See more
Section 15, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, which forbids imprisonment for debt in civil actions. (Paragraph one of the syllabus of Second National Bank of Sandusky v. Becker, 62 Ohio St. 289, 56 N.E. 1025, 51 L.R.A. 860, approved and followed.) Section 2947.20, Revised Code, insofar as it lodges authority in the judge or magistrate to order a defendant committed to jail or to a workhouse for failure to pay court costs, is violative of Section 15, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and is unconstitutional [. . .] An indigent person taxed with costs in a civil action is not jailed to work off this obligation. Section 15, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, expressly prohibits imprisonment for civil debt.6 In criminal cases, court costs, assessed *103 to defray the administrative costs of the litigation, are likewise subject to the same prohibition. The purpose of assessing costs in criminal and in civil cases is the same and there is no justification for imprisonment for nonpayment of costs in criminal cases but not in civil cases [. . .] By being involved in court proceedings, any litigant, by implied contract, becomes liable for the payment of court costs if taxed as a part of the court's judgment. A judgment for costs in a criminal case is a civil, not a criminal, obligation, and may be collected only by the methods provided for the collection of civil judgments. To hold otherwise would permit that which is constitutionally prohibited.
|Ohio||Strongsville v. Waiwood ,577 N.E.2d 63 (Ohio 1989)||A court may not order a person to appear orissue a warrant for unpaid court costs.||
An arrest warrant issued after defendant failed to attend a hearing for failure to pay court costs was defective because failure to pay court costs is a civil liability not+ See more
an obligation, such as a fine, that subjects a debtor to arrest.
|Ohio||State v. Ellis, 2d Dist., 2008 Ohio 2719.||If community service is in lieu of either fines or court costs, contempt may not be imposed for failure to perform||Accordingly, the trial court's judgment finding Ellis in criminal contempt for nonperformance of community service work to satisfy his fines and court costs is reversed.||Enforcement|
|Ohio||Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Goldie, 894 N.E.2d 1226 (2008).||Failing to follow the dictates of R.C. 2947.14 and using contempt as a sanction to collect fines can result in disciplinary violations||#VALUE!||Enforcement|
|Ohio||In re GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Unpaid Court Costs, Fees and Delinquencies, 932 N.E.2d 405 (2010).||The court may not collect fines by refusing to accept filings.||
Plaintiff-appellant, GMS Management Company, Inc., appeals a decision of Judge David D'Apolito of Mahoning County Court No. 4, which found that GMS owes over $3,000 for court costs and ordered+ See more
the clerk of that court to refuse to accept any new pleadings even if court costs are advanced until all prior delinquent costs and fees have been paid in full. We agree with appellant's argument that this decision was unconstitutionally entered without notice or an opportunity to be heard and is an unconstitutional denial of access to the courts. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded based upon constitutional violations.
|Ohio||State v. Short, 2nd Dist. Darke No. 2011 CA 16, 2012-Ohio-2546.||The court may not order the forfeiture of a driver's license as a means of collecting costs.||
We agree that the municipal court lacked authority to order the forfeiture of Short's license for his failure to pay court costs. Accordingly, the court's order of forfeiture of Short's driver's+ See more
license is vacated.
|Ohio||State v. Cruise, 185 Ohio App. 3d 230, 233 (2009)||The court may not use money forfeited by a defendant as a means of collecting costs.||The trial court erred as a matter of law in diverting money forfeited by the appellee to pay court costs and attorney fees.||Enforcement|