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 Commitment
in Rashid v. J.B., 410 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 1987), the court held that indigent litigants in civil commitment proceedings were entitled to counsel. Recognizing the commitment as a "massive curtailment of liberty" (a cite to Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980)), the court noted that "the constitutional safeguards afforded criminal defendants are generally extended to those involved in civil commitment proceedings ... One such procedural safeguard provided in mental health proceedings is the right to counsel." The court then found that the statutory right to counsel had been created "[i]n accord with the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution ..."
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
no