“[T]o show a violation of the [Equal Protection Clause], a party ‘must first establish that the challenged act treats unequally two similarly situated classes of people.’” (internal quotation marks omitted
How later courts described this case
- “[T]o show a violation of the [Equal Protection Clause], a party ‘must first establish that the challenged act treats unequally two similarly situated classes of people.’” (internal quotation marks omitted
- rejecting article I, section 10 challenge to County’s denial of representation at public expense at an inquest proceeding
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Ellington, J.
(concurring) — I agree with appellants that the right to access to the courts is fundamental to our system of justice. Indeed, it is the right “conservative of all other rights.” Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 , 28 S. Ct. 34 , 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907). I also agree with appellants that meaningful access requires representation. Where rights and responsibilities are adjudicated in the absence of representation, the results are often unjust. If representation is absent because of a litigant’s poverty, then likely so is justice, and for the same reason.
As the majority cogently points out, however, this case does not involve an adjudication of rights or responsibilities. I therefore concur in the result.
The majority also is correct that our state supreme court has not viewed the right of access as carrying a right to *910 representation at public expense in the absence of statute, unless fundamental liberty interests are at stake in the litigation. See In re Dependency of Grove, 127 Wn.2d 221, 237 , 897 P.2d 1252 (1995). While I would urge a broader view of the circumstances which call for representation at public expense (see, e.g., Housing Auth. v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 744 , 557 P.2d 321 (1976) (Horowitz and Utter, JJ., dissenting)), this case does not present those issues.
Review denied at 141 Wn.2d 1003 (2000).