rational basis test in Nebraska

1999State v. Garber, supra, quoting Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 , 90 S. Ct. 1153 , 25 L.

1999State v. Garber, supra, quoting Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 , 90 S. Ct. 1153 , 25 L.

1997The rational basis test for equal protection is violated "only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective." Garber at 654, 545 N.W.2d at 79 , quoting McGowan v. Maryland , 366 U.S. 420 , 425 (1961).

1996For these reasons, the rational basis standard “is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 , 81 S. Ct. 1101 , 6 L.

2025GOLDEN Cite as 318 Neb. 680 [12] In Keller v. City of Fremont, 280 Neb. 788 , 791, 790 N.W.2d 711 , 713 (2010), we stated that “[w]e have interpreted the Nebraska Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses to afford protections coextensive to those of the federal Constitution.” For that proposition in Keller, we relied on due process cases including Citizens for Eq.

2025GOLDEN Cite as 318 Neb. 680 Hobbs, 288 Neb. 546 , 558, 849 N.W.2d 480 , 489 (2014), for the proposition that under special legislation analysis, “legisla- tive classifications must be real and not illusive” and “cannot be based on distinctions without a substantial difference.” They also note that we have stated that “[t]he test of validity under the special legislation prohibition is more stringent than the traditional rational basis test.” Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699, 713 , 467 N.W.2d 836, 846-47 (1991).

2025We agree that in Malone, we ultimately applied a rational basis test when we concluded that the ordinance at issue “bears a reasonable relationship to the public’s health, safety, and welfare.” 294 Neb. at 534 , 883 N.W.2d at 334 . - 705 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports N’DA V.

2025We agree that in Malone, we ultimately applied a rational basis test when we concluded that the ordinance at issue “bears a reasonable relationship to the public’s health, safety, and welfare.” 294 Neb. at 534 , 883 N.W.2d at 334 . - 705 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports N’DA V.

2020The rational basis test, which is the most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny of equal protection claims, is satisfied - 684 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports REO ENTERS. v. VILLAGE OF DORCHESTER Cite as 306 Neb. 683 as long as (1) there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, (2) the legislative facts on which the classification is based may ratio- nally have been considered to be true by the governmental decision- maker, and (3) the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or

2020In requiring the written 10 See id. 11 DeCoste v. City of Wahoo, 255 Neb. 266 , 583 N.W.2d 595 (1998). 12 State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96 , 933 N.W.2d 558 (2019); Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 13 See Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 14 Id. - 690 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports REO ENTERS. v. VILLAGE OF DORCHESTER Cite as 306 Neb. 683 guarantee, Dorchester claims it has a legitimate interest in maintaining a financially stable municipal utility by collect- ing from tenants who abscond without paying their bills when those bills are in excess of the tenant’s security deposi

2020In requiring the written 10 See id. 11 DeCoste v. City of Wahoo, 255 Neb. 266 , 583 N.W.2d 595 (1998). 12 State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96 , 933 N.W.2d 558 (2019); Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 13 See Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 14 Id. - 690 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports REO ENTERS. v. VILLAGE OF DORCHESTER Cite as 306 Neb. 683 guarantee, Dorchester claims it has a legitimate interest in maintaining a financially stable municipal utility by collect- ing from tenants who abscond without paying their bills when those bills are in excess of the tenant’s security deposi

2020In requiring the written 10 See id. 11 DeCoste v. City of Wahoo, 255 Neb. 266 , 583 N.W.2d 595 (1998). 12 State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96 , 933 N.W.2d 558 (2019); Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 13 See Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 14 Id. - 690 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports REO ENTERS. v. VILLAGE OF DORCHESTER Cite as 306 Neb. 683 guarantee, Dorchester claims it has a legitimate interest in maintaining a financially stable municipal utility by collect- ing from tenants who abscond without paying their bills when those bills are in excess of the tenant’s security deposi

2020In requiring the written 10 See id. 11 DeCoste v. City of Wahoo, 255 Neb. 266 , 583 N.W.2d 595 (1998). 12 State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96 , 933 N.W.2d 558 (2019); Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 13 See Lingenfelter, supra note 6 . 14 Id. - 690 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports REO ENTERS. v. VILLAGE OF DORCHESTER Cite as 306 Neb. 683 guarantee, Dorchester claims it has a legitimate interest in maintaining a financially stable municipal utility by collect- ing from tenants who abscond without paying their bills when those bills are in excess of the tenant’s security deposi

2016Dist., 274 Neb. 278 , 739 N.W.2d 742 (2007). 79 Id. 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 Id. 83 Id. - 78 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports LINGENFELTER v. LOWER ELKHORN NRD Cite as 294 Neb. 46 [19,20] Under the rational basis test, whether an equal pro- tection claim challenges a statute or some other government act or decision, the burden is upon the challenging party to eliminate any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.84 Under this most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny of equal protection claims, the Equal P

2016Dist., 274 Neb. 278 , 739 N.W.2d 742 (2007). 79 Id. 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 Id. 83 Id. - 78 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports LINGENFELTER v. LOWER ELKHORN NRD Cite as 294 Neb. 46 [19,20] Under the rational basis test, whether an equal pro- tection claim challenges a statute or some other government act or decision, the burden is upon the challenging party to eliminate any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.84 Under this most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny of equal protection claims, the Equal P

2016Dist., 274 Neb. 278 , 739 N.W.2d 742 (2007). 79 Id. 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 Id. 83 Id. - 78 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports LINGENFELTER v. LOWER ELKHORN NRD Cite as 294 Neb. 46 [19,20] Under the rational basis test, whether an equal pro- tection claim challenges a statute or some other government act or decision, the burden is upon the challenging party to eliminate any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.84 Under this most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny of equal protection claims, the Equal P

2009Id.

2006Similarly, in Ryszkiewicz v. City of New Britain, 193 Conn. 589 , 479 A.2d 793 (1984), the court found no rational basis for a state statute which capped one city’s liability for damages caused by ice and snow on its streets, where the liability of other cities was not similarly capped.

2006Similarly, in Ryszkiewicz v. City of New Britain, 193 Conn. 589 , 479 A.2d 793 (1984), the court found no rational basis for a state statute which capped one city’s liability for damages caused by ice and snow on its streets, where the liability of other cities was not similarly capped.

2006See, Crafton v. Gibson, 752 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. App. 2001); Blakely v. Blakely, 83 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. 2002).

2006In Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, 354 So. 2d 808 (Ala. 1978) (superseded by statute as stated in Freeman v. Purvis, 400 So. 2d 389 (Ala. 1981)), the court applied the rational basis test to strike down a statute which granted tort immunity to the largest *554 city in the state where other cities enjoyed no such immunity.

2001Pfizer Inc. v. Lancaster County Bd. of Equal., 260 Neb. 265 , 616 N.W.2d 326 (2000).

2001Pfizer Inc. v. Lancaster County Bd. of Equal., 260 Neb. 265 , 616 N.W.2d 326 (2000).

1999U.S. v. McDougherty, 920 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1990). *787 The rational basis standard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective.

1997See, Plyler v. Doe, supra; Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 , 75 S. Ct. 461 , 99 L.

1997See, Plyler v. Doe, supra; Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 , 75 S. Ct. 461 , 99 L.

1997Id.

1997Id.

1996Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 , 109 S. Ct. 1591 , 104 L.

1996Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 , 109 S. Ct. 1591 , 104 L.

1995Id. , at 606.

1995The court held that education is not a fundamental right under the Colorado constitution, id. , at 1017, applied a rational basis test, and upheld the state's school financing system.

1995The court concluded "thorough and uniform does not require that educational expenditures per pupil in every school district be identical." Id. , at 1025.

1986Using a rational basis test on this classification, age not being a suspect class, see Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 , 99 S. Ct. 939 , 59 L.

1986Using a rational basis test on this classification, age not being a suspect class, see Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 , 99 S. Ct. 939 , 59 L.