May 19 roundup


  • Regarding the first story linked, it is not entirely accurate that “[i]ndividuals can’t constitutionally be imprisoned in Texas for failing to pay a debt.” There’s a Court of Appeals decision (the name of which escapes me at the moment) that specifies that the constitutional provision at issue solely applies to those incapable of paying the debt. When the debt has been reduced to a final judgment, flagrant refusal to pay despite having the means can result in imprisonment for contempt in Texas. The opinion in the Skero case states that he did not “challenge the trial court’s finding that he had the ability to pay the attorney’s fees.” So the trial court’s decision probably could have been upheld on this basis as well (though it goes unremarked in the appellate court’s opinion).

  • […] Not to be confused with the exploding-bra claim against Victoria’s Secret this spring from South Carolina, the original coverage of which is still available on GoogleCache […]