Interesting Case Law
Alimony and wife's lawyers fees are civil debts, not enforceable by contempt procedures, since the Constitution did away with debtor's prison.
DAVIS V. BROUGHTON, 382 SW 2d 219.
Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
SMITH V. UNITED STATE, 502, F.2d.512 (1974)
An individual may not be punished for exercising a protected statutory constitutional right.
U.S. v. GOODWIN, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 457 U.S. 368, 73 L.Ed2d 74, on remand 687 F.2d 44 (1982)
Within limits of practicability, a state must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard. . .Whenever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend. . .The right to meaningful opportunity to be heard within limits of practicality must be protected against denial by particular laws that operate to jeopardize it for particular individuals.
BODDIE V. CONNECTICUT, 92, S.Ct. 780, 401 U.S. 371. 28 L.Ed.2d 113 conformed t 329 F. Supp. 844 (1971)
Quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law impinges on a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional.
If a law has no other purpose that to chill assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional.
HARRIS V. McRAE, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 448 U.S. 297, 65 L.Ed.2d 784,rehearing denied 101 S.Ct. 39, 448 U.S. 917, 65 L.Ed.2d 1180 (1980)
In pursuing substantial state interest, state cannot choose means which unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity.
DUNN V. BLUMSTEIN, 92 S.Ct. 995, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)
A state cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels.
BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 421 U.S. 809 (1975)
Jury trials are a must when holding a trial for civil contempt where "clear and convincing" evidence must be produced. United States Constitution, Amendment VII states: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollar, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." "The jury. . . . acts not only as a safeguard against judicial excesses, but also as a barrier to legislative and executive oppression. The Supreme Court . . .recognizes that the jury . . . is designed to protect Defendants against oppressive governmental practices."
UNITED STATES EX REL TOTH V. QUARLES, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955)
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it."
STATE V. SUTTON, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 ALR 660. Also see (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S.Ct. 1314)
It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
BOYD V. U.S., 116 US 616, 635, (1885)
"Whoever, under color of law, statute, or ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitants of any state to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or Law of the United States. . . shall be fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned one year or both."
Title 18 U.S.C.A. 242 (U.S. Criminal Code)
"When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights, he exercises no discretion or individual judgement; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a "minister" of his own prejudice."
PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U.S. 547 at 567 (1967)
"Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his person or property."
FIREMAN'S INS/ CO. OF NEWARK, N.J. V. WASHBURN COUNTY, 2 Wis.2d 214, 85 N.W.2d 840 (1957)
"Governmental immunity is not a defense under (42 USC 1983) making liable every person who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil rights."
WESTBERRY V. FISHER, 309 F.Supp. 95 (District Ct.- of Maine - 1970
Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction."
BRADLEY V. FISHER, U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)
"Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity (Ed. Note: or "good faith") would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury. . ."
HARLOW V. FITZGERALD, 102 S.Ct. 2727 at 2737, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)
"When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction or acts in face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost."
RANKIN V. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844.
[Note: If the Right to Counsel under the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the Court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. Remember this in child support contempt proceedings and false domestic violence proceedings.]
"Judges are not absolutely immune from liability to damages under Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 & 1985
PETERSON V. STANCZAK, 48 F.R.D. 426
"There is no judicial immunity from criminal liability."
SHORE V. HOWARD, 414 F.Supp. 379
"State judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights."
GOSS V. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 312 F2d. 1279 (U.S.Ct.App. - Illinois - 1963)
"A statutory power, to be validly executed, must be executed according to the statutory directions."
Marx v. Hanthorn, 148 US 172, 180, 37 L Ed. 410, 13 S Ct 508 (1892). State ex rel. Laurisch v. Pohl, 214 Minn. 221,225, 8 N.W. 2d 227 (Minn S Ct 1943.
"By the plain terms of section 1983, two - and only two - allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law."
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980)
