Cited by

of Hennepin, see Programmed Land, d at 5 30.

76 n. 3 (Minn.1980), a tax case, we suggested in dicta that decisions such as Snowden that require a showing of purposeful discrimination "are not constitutionally compelled but are based on a need for federal-state comity.” See Southland Mall, Inc. v. Gamer, 455 F.2d 887, 889 (6th Cir.1972) (“The federal courts hav

[14] , 76 n. 3 (Minn. 1980), a tax case, we suggested in dicta that decisions such as Snowden that require a showing of purposeful discrimination "are not constitutionally compelled but are based on a need for federal-state comity."

“ ‘To determine whether a property has been unequally assessed,’ * * * ‘[the property’s] actual market value and real estate tax assessment must be compared with the market value and real estate tax assessments of other properties.’ ” (quoting United Nat’l ).

XIV, even though the property so discriminated against be not assessed higher than its fair market value adopted as a uniform basis in the making of assessments.” Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959) (overruled in part on other grounds by United Nat’l ).

Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959) (overruled in part on other grounds by United Nat’l ).

See, Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 70 , -55 (1959).

n as follows: “To determine whether a property has been unequally assessed,” this court has recently stated, “its actual market value and real estate tax assessment must be compared with the market value and real estate tax assessments of other properties.” at 76 (Minn.1980).

“To determine whether a property has been unequally assessed,” this court has recently stated, “its actual market value and real estate tax assessment must be compared with the market value and real estate tax assessments of other properties.” at 76 (Minn.1980).

Although the Hamm opinion goes on to state as dictum that there must be something equivalent to an intentional violation of uniformity to support a claim of discrimination, at 76 .