TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Blythe v. State

Blythe v. State, 4 Ind. 525 (1853)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 16, 1853
Judges
Stuart
Citations
4 Ind. 5251853 Ind. LEXIS 183
Cited by 29
Headnotes
So much of s. 15 upon p. 3 of yol. 2, R. S. 1852, as requires an attorney at law, in the case of a poor person, to prosecute or defend, upon his appointment by the Court, without fee, is in conflict with s. 21, art. 1, of the constitution of 1851, and void.
Summary
APPEAL from the Vanderburgh Court of Common Pleas.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stuart

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Stuart, J.

One Rodgers stood charged with larceny in the Common Pleas; and the Court being satisfied that the accused was entitled to his defence in forma pauperis, assigned James E. Blythe, Esq., an attorney of the Court, as counsel to defend Rodgers. Blythe thereupon denied the right of the state, or of the Court, to demand his professional services without compensation, and thereupon refused to act. For such refusal the Court adjudged him guilty of a contempt, and ordered him to make his fine to the state in the sum of 5 dollars, and stand committed, &c. The facts are all set out in a bill of exceptions—whether strictly regular so as to forbid a disposition of the case without meeting the main question, it is not necessary to inquire.

So much of the 15th sect., p. 30, vol. 2, R. S. 1852, as requires the services of an attorney at law to prosecute or defend without fee, is in conflict with the 21st sect., art. 1, of the constitution, and void.

Blythe's refusal was not a contempt.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed.

Cause remanded, &c.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1876–1877: 31882–1883: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11898–1899: 11900–1901: 11902–1903: 11908–1909: 11912–1913: 11928–1929: 11940–1941: 11942–1943: 11964–1965: 11972–1973: 11976–1977: 11978–1979: 11982–1983: 11984–1985: 11990–1991: 31998–1999: 12000–2001: 12002–2003: 12016–2017: 318762026peak 1876 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sholes v. Sholes760 N.E.2d 156 (Ind. 2001)
  2. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Brown805 P.2d 830 (Wyo. 1991)
  3. STATE ex rel. WORKERS'COMP. v. Brown805 P.2d 830 (Wyo. 1991)
  4. Knox County Council v. State ex rel. McCormick29 N.E.2d 405 (Ind. 1940)
  5. Dills v. State59 Ind. 15 (1877)
  6. Cheatham v. Pohle764 N.E.2d 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

Most recent

  1. In re K.A.S.2016 UT 55
  2. L.E.S. v. C.D.M.2016 UT 55, 390 P.3d 278 · Dissent
  3. L.E.S. v. C.D.M.2016 UT 55, 390 P.3d 278 · Dissent
  4. Cheatham v. Pohle764 N.E.2d 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
  5. Sholes v. Sholes760 N.E.2d 156 (Ind. 2001)
  6. Holmes v. Jones719 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list