Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Williams Vs. Illinois

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 29, 1970

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

71 entries 8 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Rinaldi Vs. Yeager US Supreme Court · May 31, 1966
  2. Douglas Vs. California US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  3. Shapiro Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1969
  4. Reynolds Vs. Sims US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  5. Garner Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1961
  6. Poe Vs. Ullman US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  7. Morris Vs. Schoonfield US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1970
  8. Flemming Vs. Nestor US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1960
  9. U.S. 235 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. Illinois
    Search
  10. U.S. 235 (1970) Williams v. Illinois
    Search
  11. and set the case for oral argument with No. 782, Morris v. Schoonfield
    Search
  12. People v. Williams
    Search
  13. unpaid fines. See Hill v. Wampler
    Search
  14. impermissible discrimination that rests on ability to pay, and, accordingly, we vacate the judgment below. Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  15. scheme does not distinguish between defendants on the basis of ability to pay fines. But, as we said in Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  16. requirement that two persons convicted of the same offense receive identical sentences. Thus it was that, in Williams v. New
    Search
  17. provide as a means of enforcing payment of a fine that the defendant be imprisoned until the fine is paid. R. E. Lee v. State
    Search
  18. This provision has been amended by Chapter 147 of the 1970 Laws of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). See Morris v. Schoonfield
    Search
  19. maximum authorized sentence.) N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. Sec. 470-d (Supp. 1969). Sec. 470-d has been limited by People v. Saffore
    Search
  20. per day. Id. V ermont
    Search
  21. per day. Id., Secs. 7222 and 7223. V irginia
    Search
  22. See Walz v. Tax
    Search
  23. Jachman v. Rosenbaum
    Search
  24. See, e.g., Chief Judge Desmond's excellent treatment of the historical development in People v. Saffore
    Search
  25. People v. District
    Search
  26. Rinaldi v. Yeager
    Search
  27. willful refusal to pay a fine or court costs. See Ex parte Smith, 97 Utah 280, 92 P.2d 1098 (1939). Cf. Illinois v. Allen
    Search
  28. Cf. United States v. Wade
    Search
  29. a constitutionally protected interest of this appellant. Due process, as I noted in my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman
    Search
  30. bulwark . . . against arbitrary legislation.' Hurtado v. California
    Search
  31. See Flemming v. Nestor
    Search
  32. U. S. 603 (1960), and my dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  33. supra, at 394 U. S. 658 (HARLAN, J., dissenting). In Shapiro, Harper v. Virginia
    Search
  34. Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 , 383 U. S. 680 (1966), and William v. Rhodes
    Search
  35. sits. See also Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  36. decisions, e.g., Douglas v. California
    Search
  37. its means can arguably be supposed to be related to a legitimate purpose ( see my dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  38. demonstrating the existence of a rational connection between means and ends is not borne by the State ( see Flemming v. Nestor
    Search
  39. supra, and my dissenting opinion in Swann v. Adams
    Search
  40. nature of the interests affected. Thus, as a due process matter, I have subscribed to the admonition of Skinner v. Oklahoma
    Search
  41. is concerned. See my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman
    Search
  42. supra, at 367 U. S. 543 . The same viewpoint was implicit in Flemming v. Nestor
    Search
  43. because it imposes a burden on that right, or because other means, entailing less imposition, may exist. See NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  44. Lovell v. City
    Search
  45. that deprives an individual of his liberty -- his right to remain free. Cf. my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman
    Search
  46. one convicted of crime, is no less substantial, cf. concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in Illinois v. Allen
    Search
  47. acceptable means for enforcing its interest, given the existence of less restrictive alternatives. Cf. Mullane v. Central
    Search
  48. the power to fashion a procedure pending further consideration of this problem by the state legislature. Cf. Rosado v. Wyman
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. Illinois
    Search
  50. See Hill v. Wampler
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial