State v. Basinow
| Decision Date | 28 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 7585,7585 |
| Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. Lloyd G. BASINOW. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
David H. Souter, Atty. Gen., and Richard B. McNamara, Concord, for the state.
Lloyd G. Basinow, pro se.
The Manchester District Court (Capistran, J.) found the defendant guilty of a parking violation and fined him ten dollars. The defendant appealed to the Hillsborough County Superior Court but refused to pay the eight-dollar filing fee as required by Superior Court Rule 86 (RSA 491:App. R.86 (Supp.1975)) and RSA 499:18 (Supp.1975) on the ground that the fee violates article 14 of part I of the New Hampshire Constitution. The defendant is not and does not claim to be an indigent. Perkins, J., reserved and transferred questions of law to this court that raise the basic issue of whether superior court filing fees for nonindigents are unconstitutional.
Article 14 of part I of the New Hampshire Constitution states:
The defendant contends that the eight-dollar filing fee requires him to purchase justice and that his remedy-the chance to have his parking violation reversed-is not free.
Over thirty state constitutions contain provisions similar or identical to article 14. Comment, Article I, Section 19 of the Maine Constitution: The Forgotten Mandate, 21 Me.L.R. 83, 83 n.1 (1969). The section has its origin in the Magna Carta. J. Colby, Manual of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire 96 (1902). Although historical research has disclosed no fixed meaning for the provision as a whole, the section is basically an equal protection clause in that it "implies that all litigants similarly situated may appeal to the courts both for relief and for defense under like conditions and with like protection and without discrimination." Old Colony R.R. Co. v. Assessors, 309 Mass. 439, 450, 35 N.E.2d 246, 253 (1941).
The few cases that have considered whether the clause 'to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it' bars appellate filing fees have answered in the negative. In Perce v. Hallett, 13 R.I. 363 (1881), the plaintiff refused to pay an entry fee on the ground that to enact a fee is to sell justice. The court rejected his contention noting that the Rhode Island counterpart to article 14 of our constitution 'was designed to abolish, not fixed fees, prescribed for the purpose of revenue, but the fines which were anciently paid to expedite or delay law proceeding and procure favor.' Id. at 364.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota sustained probate court fees against the same challenge stating that the constitutional provision ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Melof
...containing equal-protection guarantees. See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 137 N.H. 260, 628 A.2d 1069 (1993); State v. Basinow, 117 N.H. 176, 177, 371 A.2d 458, 459 (1977) (article 1 "is basically an equal protection clause in that it `"implies that all litigants similarly situated may ap......
-
Cargill's Estate v. City of Rochester
...remedies readily available, and to guard against arbitrary and discriminatory infringements on access to the courts. State v. Basinow, 117 N.H. 176, 371 A.2d 458 (1977); 8 Bravenic, The New Hampshire Bill of Rights in the Constitution of 1784 and the Treatment of Dissenters During the Ameri......
-
In re Silverstein, 2011–012.
...courts both for relief and for defense under like conditions and with like protection and without discrimination.” State v. Basinow, 117 N.H. 176, 177, 371 A.2d 458 (1977) (quotation omitted). Its purpose is to make civil remedies readily available, and to guard against arbitrary and discri......
-
Lamarche v. McCarthy
...purpose of revenue, but the fines which were anciently paid to expedite or delay law proceeding and procure favor." State v. Basinow, 117 N.H. 176, 178, 371 A.2d 458 (1977) (quotation omitted). It "is basically an equal protection clause in that it implies that all litigants similarly situa......