Which case clarified that the right to counsel does not extend to civil cases?

The case that clarified that the right to counsel does not extend to civil cases is Scott v. Illinois. In this decision, the Supreme Court determined that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is applicable in criminal cases where imprisonment could be imposed, thus distinguishing it from civil matters. The ruling emphasized that the constitutional guarantee for legal representation is intended specifically for situations where a person's liberty is at stake, acknowledging a fundamental difference between civil and criminal proceedings.

While other cases mentioned do address the right to counsel, they either pertain specifically to criminal cases or the rights related to due process in civil cases, rather than clarifying the limitations of the right to counsel in civil contexts. This distinction is important in understanding the broader implications of legal rights and representation within the judicial system.