Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 30, 2001No. B136807Published

1Concurrence

JOHNSON, J., Concurring.

I agree with the result of the majority in finding the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant’s case. But I support a broader rationale for that result and write separately to explain why, in my view, the trial court lacks discretion to impose a Code of Civil Procedure section 1030 security deposit requirement on appellant, once the judge determines appellant is financially qualified for that in forma pauperis status and possesses a nonfrivolous claim. At that point, appellant has a right to proceed without posting a security deposit or paying fees,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. United States v. GuestSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Saenz v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. Deep Aggarwal v. Ponce School of MedicineCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API