Laserfiche WebLink
! <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br /> <br />are matters that are assessed as to their reasonableness by the <br />Court in its application of well-established constitutional <br />principles. See in~ra at 16-19. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, there are no material facts that can be <br />genuinely disputed. The only matter that requires determination is <br />whether defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As <br />demonstrated below, they are, and their motion for summary judgment <br />should, therefore, be granted. <br /> <br />II. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE <br /> THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID FORmUlA IS A RATIONAL APPROACH TO A <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />i <br /> <br /> LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PROBLEM. <br /> <br /> It is axiomatic that statutes are entitled to a <br />presumption of constitutionality and a challenger must demonstrate <br />beyond a reasonable doubt that a statute is unconstitutional. E.g., <br />State ex rel. Forslund v. Bronson, 305 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 1981). <br />Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this overwhelming burden. <br /> <br /> Plaintiffs challenge to the local government aid formula <br />is premised on the contention that it deprives them of their rights <br />under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the <br />United States Constitution.25/ V~ere, as here, neither a <br />fundamental interest nor a suspect classification is involved, a law <br />will survive equal protection challenge if it is rationally related <br /> <br />25/ <br /> <br />Plaintiffs' challenge is also based on Article 1, Sec. 2 of the <br />Minnesota Constitution, which is the state's equivalent of the <br />federal equal protection clause. The test for compliance with <br />either provision is the same. E.g., Schumann v. Commissioner of <br />Taxation, 253 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Minn. 1977). <br /> <br />-16- <br /> <br /> <br />