sample long brief

sample long brief - U. S. Supreme Court Cases Hicks on...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
U. S. Supreme Court Cases Hicks on Behalf of Feiock v. Feiock , 485 U.S. 624 (1988) 20, 27 International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell , 512 U.S. 821, 829, 129 L. Ed. 2d 642, __ 114 S. Ct. 2552, __ (1994) 23, 24 Shillitani v. United States , 384 U.S. 364 (1966) 10 United States v. Bajakajian , 118 S.Ct. 2028, 2046 (1998) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) 16 U. S. Courts of Appeals Cases Banks v. United States , 614 F.2d 95, 100 n.13 (6th Cir., 1980). ............................................................................... 15 United States v. Campbell , 73 F.3d 362, ____ (6th Cir.,1995) 25 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Is incarceration for civil contempt an appropriate remedy to enforce child support orders against impoverished debtors, who cannot afford to pay child support immediately and who have no immediate offers of employment that they are willfully refusing to accept? II. Do the United States and Tennessee Constitutions prohibit Tennessee from creating debtor prisons, in which indigent citizens who owe a civil debt are incarcerated for civil contempt, yet they have little or no income with which to comply with the court's child support orders and little or no funds to pay any amount required to purge their contempt and secure their own release from jail? III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by selecting a $100 purge amount in its Nov. 30, 2000, order of incarceration for civil contempt against the appellant, when the record contains no evidence that the appellant had immediate control over $100 at the instant of her incarceration, and thus the appellant could not take any action to secure her own release from jail? IV. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by following procedures for a civil contempt hearing on Feb. 4, 1999, and Aug. 30, 2000, when both the state and the trial court were motivated to punish the alleged contemnor for past behavior and not to coerce her into taking some action then within her control? V. Despite the fact that the trial court upon rehearing lowered the original civil contempt purge amount from $1,000 to $100 nunc pro tunc , was Gwen Knox wrongfully incarcerated for eights days in February 1999, in violation of her constitutional rights, and thus entitled to compensatory damages? VI. Did the trial court’s decisions on Feb. 4, 1999, and Nov. 30, 2000, concerning the appellant's mother providing child care services without compensation violate the federal and Tennessee constitutional prohibitions against slavery, and further constitute an abuse of discretion in that the trial court had neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction over the appellant's mother? VII. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when (1) it ordered on Feb. 4, 1999, and reiterated by order of Nov. 30, 2000, that the appellant should pay approximately $225/month in child support when the preponderance of evidence showed her monthly income was $0/month, (2) the trial court refused to modify the appellant’s child support
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

sample long brief - U. S. Supreme Court Cases Hicks on...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online