Is poverty a sufficient reason to delay access to the courts?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Marriage of Reese, In re, 140 Cal.Rptr. 589, 73 Cal.App.3d 120 (Cal. App. 1977):
[73 Cal.App.3d 125] '6] Indigents are entitled not merely to access to the courts but to timely access. They may not be subjected to unreasonable delays in securing fundamental rights solely by reason of their poverty.' (Earls v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.3d 109, 117, 98 Cal.Rptr.
Page 592
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances have the courts found that CALCRIM No. 220 of the California Criminal Code, or Cal.Crim No.220, is sufficient to compel a jury to find that a prosecutor must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the California Superior Court have authority to the effect that any fair, reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a municipal corporation's eminent domain power is resolved by the courts against the corporation? (California, United States of America)
Is reasonable cause reasonable cause sufficient to warrantless arrest? (California, United States of America)
Does the denial of access to the courts by the Department of Justice to defend a civil case against a defendant who is not able to pay for a lawyer to represent him in court constitute a prima facie equal protection violation? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the rule of reasonableness in the context of the reasonable use doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
If a trial court orders testing without articulating its reasons on the record, will the appellate court presume an implied finding of probable cause? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
