Laserfiche WebLink
LANCI, PAUI. Y & OR£G E:RBON. L. TD. <br /> <br />December 8, 1983 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> The Honorable Edward D. Mullaly <br /> Ramsey County District Court <br />· Ramsey County Courthouse <br /> 15 West Kellogg Blvd. <br /> St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 <br /> <br />Re: <br /> <br />City of Ramsey, et al. vs. <br />State of Minnesota, et al. <br />Court File No. 455510 <br /> <br />Dear Judge Mulally: <br /> <br /> This letter i~'submitted in response to your direction at <br />the hearing held on November 21st at which time you stated that <br />the plaintiff would be allowed the opportunity to respond to <br />defendants' reply memorandum by way of a letter memorandum. The <br />essence of our argument is set forth in Plaintiffs' Memorandum <br />in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In <br />order to defeat a motioh for summary judgment all a party need <br />do is to demonstrate that there is an issue of fact to be'tried. <br />Nord v. Herreid, 305 NW2d 337, 339 (Minn. 1981). Substantial <br />~ssues of fact are unresolved in this matter concerning the <br />purpose for the Local Government Aid Statute and determining <br />whether the statute achieves, promotes or is rationally related <br />to a legitimate legislative purpose. Defendants' Memorandum <br />and their Reply Memorandum both attempt to subtly convince the <br />court that it is necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate that <br />the plaintiffs will win the case on the merits in order to survive <br />this motion for summary judgment. Of course that 'is not the <br />standard, and although we recognize that it is indeed difficult <br />to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute, it is not <br />necessary for the plaintiffs to demonstrate at this juncture <br />that they will prevail on the merits. <br /> <br /> <br />