Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Russell v. Armitage

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided May 2, 1997No. 95-364Published

1ConcurrenceMorse, J.

Although I concur in the Court’s holding affirming the judgment of contempt, my analysis of the issues differs substantially from that of the Court.

I agree that defendant was not unconstitutionally deprived of the right to counsel, but the reason, in my view, is because he was not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the appointment of counsel in a civil contempt proceeding for nonpayment of child support. Nevertheless, this Court so holds today, relying on the recent decision in…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. In re Marriage of BettsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1990
  4. Vermont Women's Health Center v. Operation RescueSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
  5. Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API