Court Opinion

ID: 9616772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:49:36.925436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:01.331877
License: Public Domain

WREN, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
In my opinion Eastin is clearly distinguishable from the present controversy, since there is a substantial distinction between a non-waivable cost bond in medical malpractice litigation which involves only private parties and a suit against a public entity such as the Board of Regents which of necessity involves public funds.
A.R.S. § 12-821 et seq. and A.R.S. § 35-181 et seq. were designed by the legislature to protect the state against the costs and expenses of defending unfounded and baseless claims by an insolvent plaintiff. Vinnicombe v. State of California, 172 Cal. App.2d 54, 341 P.2d 705 (1959). They should not be disturbed by this Court. I would affirm.