 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Significa liberdade (talk | contribs) 58 days ago. (Update) |
 | The topic of this draft may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (September 2024) |
| Wood v. Georgia | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 4, 1980 Decided March 4, 1981 | |
| Full case name | Raymond WOOD et al v. State of Georgia |
| Citations | 450 U.S. 261 (more) L. Ed. 2d 220, 101 S. Ct. 1097 |
| Holding | |
| Equal Protection inapplicable in this case; remanded to lower court for possible due process violation. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Concur/dissent | Brennan, Marshall, |
| Dissent | White |
Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court decision revolving around potential Fourteenth Amendment violations regarding the imprisonment of probationer(s) solely on the inability to pay installments for fines.
Decision
editIn a 6–3 majority delivered by Justice Powell, the Court ruled that due to the conflict of interest of the petitioners' counsel, the possibilities of due process violations apply over the question of equal protection in this case. Thus the case was remanded to resolve those issues.[1]
References
editExternal links
edit- Text of Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (1981) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)