Cases by Issue - Costs or Filing Fees

Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California v. Hernandez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1846

Petitioner

Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hernandez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 25 (1992)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1992

Advocates

James Ching (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Richard W. Nichols (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Denton, Director Of Corrections Of California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1915

None

Little v. Streater

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6779

Appellee

Streater

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Little

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 1 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1981

Advocates

Jon C. Blue (on behalf of the Appellant)

Stephen J. McGovern (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Little, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Fuller v. Oregon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5280

Petitioner

Fuller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 40 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Oregon, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Kras

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-749

Appellee

Kras

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 434 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 18, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Huffman v. Boersen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5097

Petitioner

Huffman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boersen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 337 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Huffman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

James v. Strange

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-11

Appellee

Strange

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

James

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 128 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Strange, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Schilb v. Kuebel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-90

Appellee

Kuebel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schilb

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 357 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Kuebel, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Boddie v. Connecticut

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:04 +0000

Location

New Haven County Superior Court

121 Elm Street New Haven CT 06510

New Haven, CT 06510

United States

41° 18' 30.3624" N, 72° 55' 27.9984" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Gladys Boddie et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Connecticut

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 371 (1971)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1969

Reargued:

Tuesday, November 17, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1971

Advocates

Arthur B. LaFrance (reargued the cause for the appellants)

Raymond J. Cannon (reargued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Gladys Boddie was a married resident of Connecticut receiving welfare benefits. She filed for a divorce in New Haven County Superior Court. However, Boddie was not given a hearing because she had not paid the filing fee under Section 52-259 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Given her welfare status, she was unable to pay the fee. Her requests for fee waivers were also denied. Boddie and others who were denied divorces under Section 52-259 challenged the fee requirement in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. They alleged that the fee requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court upheld the requirement. Boddie appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did Connecticut's fee requirement for divorce filings violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boddie, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed the District Court and held the fee requirement unconstitutional. In a majority opinion authored by Justice John M. Harlan, the Court recognized the importance of "access to the courts" for Boddie, as state court was the only method of obtaining a divorce in Connecticut. While the Court acknowledged Connecticut's interest in conserving limited resources and preventing "frivolous litigation," this interest was not a "sufficient countervailing justification." Therefore, Connecticut's refusal to allow Boddie to proceed with her divorce was "a denial of due process" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas concurred in the result. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. concurred in part.

Smith v. Bennett

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

174

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bennett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 177

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 708 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1961

Decided

Monday, April 17, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Burns v. Ohio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

581

Petitioner

Burns

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 252 (1959)

Argued

Monday, May 18, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Burns, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Ortwein v. Schwab

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5431

Appellee

Schwab

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ortwein

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 656 (1973)

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Schwab, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None