Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Hicks v. Feiock | 485 U.S. 624 (1988)

Generally, courts may sanction a party for civil contempt to coerce that party to do what the court previously ordered him or her to do. But what if a court issues a civil contempt order that imposes imprisonment based on a statute that presumes a party’s inability to pay child support? The United States Supreme Court considered this question in Hicks versus Feiock.

On January nineteenth, nineteen seventy-six, Phillip Feiock was ordered by a California state court to make monthly child support payments to his ex-wife. Feiock then made sporadic payments for the next six years but eventually stopped paying.

In response, his ex-wife filed a petition in California state court, seeking to enforce the child support order. The court then ordered Feiock to pay one hundred fifty dollars per month. But Feiock only made two payments and failed to pay for nine months.

Subsequently, Feiock was served with an order to show cause as to why he shouldn’t be held in contempt. At a hearing, Cecil Hicks, the district attorney handling the matter for Feiock’s ex-wife, made out a prima facie case of contempt. Feiock argued that he wasn’t able to pay.

The court found Feiock was able to pay for five of the nine months, issued a contempt order, and sentenced Feiock to twenty-five days in jail. But the court suspended the sentence, placed Feiock on probation, and ordered him to make monthly payments as conditions of his probation.

Feiock objected, arguing that the California statute that permitted the order was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically, he argued that the order was a criminal order and that the statute presumed that he couldn’t make support payments.

The court disagreed and overruled the objection. Feiock filed a writ of habeas corpus with the California Court of Appeal, which reversed and annulled the order. Hicks then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]

Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]

Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]

Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть