Blythe v. State
Cases that cite this one
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Sholes v. Sholes (Ind. 2001)
- STATE EX REL. WORKERS'COMP. v. Brown (Wyo. 1991)
- State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Brown (Wyo. 1991)
- Cheatham v. Pohle (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
- Bayh v. Sonnenburg (Ind. 1991)
- County of Fresno v. Superior Court of Fresno Cty. (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
- Knox County Council v. State Ex Rel. McCormick (Ind. 1940)
- Dills v. State (Ind. 1877)
- In re K.A.S. (Utah 2016)
- L.E.S. v. C.D.M. (Utah 2016)
- L.E.S. v. C.D.M. (Utah 2016)
- Holmes v. Jones (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
- Emery v. State (Or. 1984)
- J. D. Williamson, Jr. v. Paul E. Vardeman, Judge of Jackson County, and Susan Stanton (8th Cir. 1982)
- Kizer v. Davis (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)
- MacKenzie v. Hillsborough County (Fla. 1973)
- State ex rel. Old Underwriters, Inc. v. Bell (Ind. 1964)
- Ruckenbrod v. Mullins (Utah 1943)
- Board of Commissioners v. Moore (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)
- Knight v. Board of Commissioners (Ind. 1913)
- Board of Commissioners v. McGregor (Ind. 1909)
- Street v. Varney Electrical Supply Co. (Ind. 1903)
- Yates v. Taylor County Court (W. Va. 1900)
- Board of Commissioners v. Pollard (Ind. 1899)
- Ex parte Harrison (Ind. 1887)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
One Rodgers stood charged with larceny in the Common Pleas; and the Court being satisfied that the accused was entitled to his defence in forma pauperis, assigned James E. Blythe, Esq., an attorney of the Court, as counsel to defend Rodgers. Blythe thereupon denied the right of the state, or of the Court, to demand his professional services without compensation, and thereupon refused to act. For such refusal the Court adjudged him guilty of a contempt, and ordered him to make his fine to the state in the sum of 5 dollars, and stand committed, &c. The facts are all set out in a bill of exceptions—whether strictly regular so as to forbid a disposition of the case without meeting the main question, it is not necessary to inquire.
So much of the 15th sect., p. 30, vol. 2, R. S. 1852, as requires the services of an attorney at law to prosecute or defend without fee, is in conflict with the 21st sect., art. 1, of the constitution, and void.
Blythe's refusal was not a contempt.
The judgment is reversed.
Cause remanded, &c.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.