Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneyappealfelony
plaintiffdefendantattorneyfelony

Related Cases

Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706, 182 P.3d 579, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5649, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6779
View Case »
Maxwell v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 606, 639 P.2d 248, 180 Cal.Rptr. 177, 18 A.L.R.4th 333
View Case »
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509
View Case »
Pelagatti v. Cohen, 370 Pa.Super. 422, 536 A.2d 1337
View Case »
Walden v. Hoke, 189 W.Va. 222, 429 S.E.2d 504
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rowe v. Yuba County, 17 Cal. 61, 1860 WL 999

Facts

The plaintiffs, attorneys appointed by the Court of Sessions, defended several pauper prisoners indicted for felony. After providing their services, they submitted their account to the Board of Supervisors of Yuba County, which was rejected. The attorneys then initiated legal action to recover payment for their services, leading to the current appeal.

The plaintiffs, attorneys appointed by the Court of Sessions, defended several pauper prisoners indicted for felony.

Issue

Whether an attorney appointed by the Court of Sessions to defend a pauper prisoner is entitled to charge the county for professional services rendered.

The plaintiffs were appointed in this way to defend several prisoners, and the account for their services was presented to the Board of Supervisors of the county, and by that body rejected.

Rule

The Court of Sessions cannot create any charge against the county except in certain special cases, and it is part of the general duty of counsel to provide services to those accused of crime who are unable to pay.

The Court of Sessions cannot create any charge against the county, except in certain special cases, of which the employment of counsel for parties under indictment is not one.

Analysis

The court analyzed the legal framework surrounding the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants and concluded that the appointment does not impose a financial obligation on the county. The court emphasized that while counsel have a duty to represent the defenseless, this duty does not translate into a legal claim for compensation against the county.

The court analyzed the legal framework surrounding the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants and concluded that the appointment does not impose a financial obligation on the county.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's judgment and directed that judgment be entered for the defendant, affirming that the attorneys could not charge the county for their services.

The judgment must be reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the defendant; and it is so ordered.

Who won?

The County of Yuba prevailed in the case because the court found that the attorneys' appointment did not create a legal obligation for the county to pay for their services.

The County of Yuba prevailed in the case because the court found that the attorneys' appointment did not create a legal obligation for the county to pay for their services.

You must be