Right to counsel
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is discretionary).
Legislation, Incarceration for Fees/Fines (incomplete)
Texas law states that that "An indigent defendant is entitled to have an attorney appointed to represent him in any adversary judicial proceeding that may result in punishment by confinement…" Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 1.051(c). Although this is part of the criminal code, this particular language is not limited to criminal cases, and in fact it has been applied in the fees/fines contempt context. See e.g. Ex parte Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (agreeing that rule, in addition to constitution, provides right to counsel in contempt case involving incarceration for failure to pay court-imposed fees, and stating that “the right to counsel turns on whether deprivation of liberty may result from a proceeding, not upon its characterization as 'criminal' or 'civil.’”)
If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.
Appointment of Counsel: categorical Qualified: yes