Legal Opinion
Fitch v. Belshaw
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided February 6, 1984No. Civ. 83-991-PAPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
PANNER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They now seek a summary judgment that the Oregon recoupment statute, ORS 135.055(6) (1981), is unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A class certification hearing was postponed pending determination of this issue. I find the statute impermissibly chills an indigent defendant’s exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
BACKGROUND
Plaint…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Bell v. BursonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Fruehauf Corporation v. Royal Exchange Assurance of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. DudleySupreme Court of Iowa · 2009
- State v. BlankWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. BlankWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. AlbertAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
- Smith v. Dept. of Corrections (A170818)Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.