Const, art. 1, § 12 precludes barring a bona fide indigent from the courtroom who has a claim with probable merit by requiring a filing fee and a bond
How later courts described this case
- Const, art. 1, § 12 precludes barring a bona fide indigent from the courtroom who has a claim with probable merit by requiring a filing fee and a bond
- appellate court docket fee and cost bond
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by Housing Authority v. Saylors, 87 Wash. 2d 732 (1976)
Carter v. University of Wash., 85 Wn.2d 391, 393-94, 536 P.2d 618 (1975), overruled in part by Housing Auth. v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 741-42, 557 P.2d 321 (1976).
Overruled on other grounds by Ford Motor Co. v. Barrett, 115 Wash. 2d 556 (1990)
Carter v. University of Wash., 85 Wn.2d 391, 398, 536 P.2d 618 (1975), overruled on other grounds by Ford *381 Motor Co. v. Barrett, 115 Wn.2d 556, 800 P.2d 367 (1990).
The opinion
Utter, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result of the majority and its reasoning insofar as it discusses Const. art. 1, § 4 and Const. art. 1, § 12. We are free to apply a less restrictive interpretation to these sections of our constitution than the United States Supreme Court did in discussing the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656 , 35 L. Ed. 2d 572 , 93 S. Ct. 1172 (1973). See Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 , 303 A.2d 273, 282 (1973), modified on grounds not here applicable, 63 N.J. 196 , 306 A.2d 65 (1973). In addition, the waiver of the cost bond in this case will affect an agency of the state and as such, its cost, if any, will be shared by all the people of the state.
Horowitz, J., concurs with Utter, J.