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).
Litigation, Civil Contempt in Family Court
in Allen v. Sheriff of Lancaster County, 511 N.W.2d 125 (Neb. 1994), the court stated that it had decided in Carroll v. Moore, 423 N.W.2d 757, 766-67 (Neb. 1988) that "under the U.S. Constitution, an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel when, as a result of the litigation, he may be deprived of his physical liberty." Thus, the Allen court held there was a right to counsel in civil contempt proceedings. Because of the reliance on physical liberty and the 14th Amendment, this decision is under some question after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Turner v. Rogers.
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.
categorical
yes