Laserfiche WebLink
S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 849 (1988) <br />t relationships are not per -se <br />1, the ad hoc factual <br />inquiries engaged in by the courts make it difficult to predict <br />whether a court would uphold Minn. Stat. S 327C.095. The <br />particular circumstances involved would be important to the <br />analysis. <br />II. EQUAL PROTECTION. <br />Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 is a general economic regulation. In <br />the area of business legislation, courts generally are more <br />deferential to the judgment of the legislature. The statute does <br />not touch upon fundamental rights or suspect classifications. <br />Consequently, the standard of review applicable to this case <br />under the equal protection clause would be the rational <br />relationship test. Pennell, 108 S. Ct. at 858. The inquiry <br />becomes whether the legislative classification (here, assumedly <br />between mobile home park owners and other landlords) is <br />rationally related to achievement of legitimate government <br />purposes. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S.,456, <br />101 S. Ct. 715, 723 (1981). <br />- In Pennell, the Supreme Court found that a rent control <br />statute served the legitimate state interest of protecting <br />tenants. 108 S.Ct. at 858. Specifically, such statutes were <br />intended to protect, among other things, "persons with relatively <br />fixed and limited incomes, consumers, wage earners . . . from <br />undue impairment of their standard of living." Id., quoting <br />Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 513 n.9, 64 S. Ct. 641, 646 <br />n.9 (1944). The court decided that it was rational for the rent <br />control law to treat some landlords differently, based on whether <br />or not they had hardship tenants, when the legitimate purpose of <br />the law was to protect hardship tenants. Id. at 859. <br />The mobile home park owners would have the burden of showing <br />that "the legislative facts on which the classification is <br />apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by <br />the governmental decision -maker." Clover Leaf Creamery, 101 S. <br />Ct. at 724, quoting Vance V. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 111, 99 S. <br />Ct., 939, 950 (1979). They also would have to establish the <br />statute's unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. <br />City of Owatonna, 439 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Minn. Ct. App.-.1989). <br />Of course, the inquiry would depend on the facts behind the <br />statute. Clearly, its purpose is essential to the analysis. If, <br />as in Pennell, Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 is designed to protect <br />