Legal Opinion
Smith v. State
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided November 15, 1978No. 78-081 and 78-137PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGrimes, J.
These cases present the issue whether RSA 604-A:5 and Laws 1975, ch. 505, § 1.01(04)(05), which limit compensation to court-appointed attorneys, are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in both cases are attorneys who challenge the system designed to compensate court-appointed counsel who represent indigent defendants.
RSA 604-A:4 provides in pertinent part:
[C] ounsel appointed pursuant to this chapter to represent the defendant at the conclusion of the representation or of any segment thereof, shall be reasonably compensated therefor and shall be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred. . . .…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NMSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- State v. RushSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1966
- Merrill v. City of ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
- R. J. Berke & Co. v. J. P. Griffin, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- In Interest of DBSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
- Kent A. Simmons Vs. State Public DefenderSupreme Court of Iowa · 2010
- State Ex Rel. Stephan v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1987
- State v. TouchetSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1994
- State v. CitizenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2005
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.