| Citation: | 401 U.S. 371 (1971) |
|---|---|
| Court: | SCOTUS |
| Date decided: | Dec 8, 1969 |
| Longer case name: | Gladys BODDIE et al., Appellants, v. State of CONNECTICUT et al. |
| Law type: | Civil |
| Jurisdiction level: | Federal |
| State of origin: | Connecticut |
| Topic(s): | Access to courts, Court fees, Divorce, and Due process |
| Lists: | Important cases |
| Result: | Win |
| Attorneys: | Arthur B. LaFrance, New Haven, Conn., reargued the cause and filed briefs for appellants. (New Haven Legal Assistance Association) |
| Others involved: | Allan Ashman filed a brief for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association as amicus curiae urging reversal. |
| More info: | LaFrance, Arthur B., Constitutional Law Reform for the Poor: Boddie V. Connecticut (August 14, 2008). Duke Law Journal, p. 487, 1971. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1227221 |
Case Importance
Arthur B. LaFrance, Duke Law Journal, 2008: “Although limited by the Court’s subsequent decision in In Re. Kras, Boddie remains today one of the most frequently cited due process decisions by the Supreme Court.”Case Details
(The syllabus is not part of the opinion, but is a summary prepared by the court reporter as a convenience.)APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Syllabus
In view of the basic position of the marriage relationship in our society and the state monopolization of the means for dissolving that relationship, due process of law prohibits a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay court fees and costs, access to its courts to indigents who, in good faith, seek judicial dissolution of their marriage. Pp. 374—383.
286 F.Supp. 968, reversed.
INTERNAL USE ONLY:
Last modified: 2022-12-27 12:42
Case internal grade: A | Case internal status: OK |
Case internal status notes:
Collections: