Griffin v. Illinois
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
80 later cases cite Griffin v. Illinois; 80 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Griffin v. Illinois?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court confined Griffin’s state-funded appellate-transcript rule and declined to extend it to additional psychiatric services that the defendant had not shown were necessary.
State v. Campbell · Supreme Court of Kansas · filed
The Griffin case was decided on the ground that indigent defendants on appeal to the highest court of the state were entitled to a trial transcript, which is not the proposition here presented.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Griffin’s transcript rationale to an indigent defendant’s appeal in a private civil tort case.
Hodgdon v. Gallagher · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · filed
This being a civil case in which the State is not involved as prosecutor, the rationale of Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 100 L. Ed. 891, 76 S. Ct. 585 (1956), and related cases does not apply.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Griffin’s free-transcript rule to an ordinary civil conditions-of-confinement appeal implicating no fundamental or exceptional interest.
Gallant v. Johnson · S.D. Ohio · filed
Even if the record did include a transcript, plaintiff would not be entitled to a free copy at government expense. An indigent defendant cannot be denied a copy of a trial transcript consistent with his Fourteenth Amendment rights if his inability to pay for a transcript precludes him from obtaining appellate review of an asserted trial error. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19 (1956). Griffin has not generally been extended to civil cases, although exceptions are made “for those civil cases involving fundamental interests, such as intrusion on family relationships.” Hillman v. Ohio, No. 2:11-cv-607, 2012 WL 1623857, at *4 (S.D. Ohio May 9, 2012) (Report and Recommendation), adopted, (S.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2012) (citing M.L.B. v. S.L.., 519 U.S. 102, 114, 116 (1996) (appeal from trial court decrees terminating parental rights); Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 289 (6th Cir.1983), abrogated on other gds by L & W Supply Corp. v. Acuity, 475 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2007); Tucker v. Branker, 142 F.3d 1294, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). A fundamental or exceptional interest is not at stake in plaintiff's appeal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Griffin’s wealth-discrimination rule to Tennessee’s suspension of driver licenses for unpaid traffic fines.
Robinson v. Long · Sixth Circuit · filed
Moreover, many of the plaintiffs’ arguments for why Fowler was wrongly decided simply restate the same arguments that were presented in that case. For example, plaintiffs claim that Tennessee’s license-suspension policy constitutes impermissible wealth discrimination under Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), and its progeny, and also claim that the policy runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s prohibition against extraordinary debt collection as articulated in James v. Strange. We considered and rejected both arguments in Fowler. See Fowler, 924 F.3d at 260–61.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The en banc court confined the Griffin line to wealth discrimination involving access to criminal or quasi-criminal judicial proceedings and declined to extend it to felon reenfranchisement.
Jones v. Governor of Florida · Eleventh Circuit · filed
The felons resist the conclusion that the Bearden and Griffin lines of precedent are limited to the contexts in which they arose, but they identify no decisions that invoke Bearden or Griffin to apply heightened scrutiny to a claim of wealth discrimination outside those contexts.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Griffin v. Illinois and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace