context: Decisions setting aside (as constitutionally invalid) restrictions upon use of the courts, based upon the ability of a party to pay, have occurred principally in criminal cases. The principle has been applied to protect the fundamental rights of some indigents in civil cases.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 99 Cal. App. 2d 512, 515-516
citation_a.parenthetical: statute unconstitutionally denied divorce to the spouse of an incurably insane person, unless the plaintiff could prove ability to support the insane person
citation_a.sentence: See e.g. Coonce v. Coonce, 356 Mass. 690, 693-695 (proceedings in forma pauperis in divorce); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 376-379; Morganti v. Morganti, 99 Cal. App. 2d 512, 515-516 (statute unconstitutionally denied divorce to the spouse of an incurably insane person, unless the plaintiff could prove ability to support the insane person); Harrington v. Harrington, 269 Atl. 2d (Maine) 310, 314-316 (statutory bond in repossession proceedings); Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 58 Misc. 2d (N.Y.) 1045, 1048-1059 (costs in divorce proceedings).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 401 U. S. 144, 153
citation_b.parenthetical: indigent required to furnish bond as condition of presenting defense to eviction
citation_b.sentence: Cf. State v. Sanks, 225 Ga. 88, 90 (indigent required to furnish bond as condition of presenting defense to eviction), app. dism. 401 U. S. 144, 153.