Skogerson v. McConnell

I concur in reversing the district court’s dismissal of the McConnells’ appeal, but not for the reasons set out in the majority opinion.

The district court, citing I.R.C.P. 81(7), concluded that the cash appeal bonds required by I.C. §§ 1-2311 and -2312, and I.R.C.P. 81(7), could not be waived for indigents pursuant to I.C. § 31-3220, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The majority has reversed the district court, relying solely upon Frizzell v. Swafford, 104 Idaho 823, 663 P.2d 1125 (1983), which concludes that those appeal bond provisions are unconstitutional as a violation of due process.