Phillip Morris v. Hiram Schoonfield, Warden
Supreme Court of the United States
1Per curiam
We noted probable jurisdiction1 and set the case for oral argument with Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 235, decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation2 dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in Williams, that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in…
2Cited by127 opinions
- Bearden v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Tate v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- In Re AntazoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Ex Parte WilliamsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1982
- State v. De BonisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1971
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.