Cited by

But without a showing that “similarly situated persons 16 have been treated differently,” (quotation omitted).

Minnesota courts “routinely reject[]” equal-protection claims when a party cannot make the threshold showing that they are “similarly situated to those whom they contend are being treated differently.” see also Holloway, d at 347 (noting that, to establish an equal- protection claim, a claimant must show that they are “treated differently from others to whom the claimant is similarly situated in all relevant respects” (quotation omitted)).

In reviewing constitutional challenges to legislation, we presume that “Minnesota statutes are constitutional and will strike down a statute as unconstitutional only if absolutely necessary.” (citation omitted).

Minnesota courts “routinely reject[]” equal-protection claims when a party cannot make the threshold showing that they are “similarly situated to those whom 5 they contend are being treated differently.”

“Minnesota’s statutes are presumed constitutional,” and we “will strike down a statute as unconstitutional only if absolutely necessary.”

“[T]his threshold showing [is required] ‘because the guarantee of equal protection does not require that the State treat persons who are differently situated as though they were the same.’” (quoting Paquin, d at 906).

Fletcher, d at 19; (“We impose this threshold showing because the guarantee of equal protection does not require that the State treat persons who are differently situated as though they were the same.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)).

Minnesota’s statutes are presumed constitutional and we “will strike down a statute as unconstitutional only if absolutely necessary.”

See Mumm v. Mornson , (noting that when plaintiff’s 7 constitutional claims lack specificity, courts will still address them if facts alleged sufficiently state a claim); (stating that Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection challenge requires showing by plaintiff that “similarly situated persons have been treated differently” (quotation omitted)); Mumm, d at 487 (“A cognizable claim of a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation must describe

In determining whether two groups are similarly situated, the focus is on “whether they are alike in all relevant respects.”

“[I]n order to establish th at [an appellant] has been de nied equal protection of the laws, [the appellant] must show that sim ilarly situated persons have been treated differently.” (quotation omitted).

“We presume that Minnesota statutes are constitutional and will strike down a statute as unconstitutional only if absolutely necessary.” d 517, 519 (Minn. 2011).

The supreme court has noted that “[i]t is well settled that in order to establish that [an appellant] has been denied equal protection of the laws, [the appellant] must show that similarly situated persons have been treated differently.” (quotation omitted).

In determining whether groups are similarly situated, the focus is on whether “they are alike in all relevant respects.”

Second, even assuming that the felon-in-possession statute creates two classes of defendants—pre-DSRA defendants and post-DSRA defendants—they are not “alike in all relevant respects.”

Minnesota appellate courts have “routinely rejected equal-protection claims when a party cannot establish that he or she is similarly situated to those whom they contend are being treated differently.”

An equal-protection challenge re quires an initial showing that “similarly situated persons have been treated differently.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Cox , , 519 (Minn. 2011).

An e qual-protection challenge requires an initial showing by the plaintiff that “similarly situated persons have been treated differently.” State v. Cox , (quotation omitted).

See State v. Cox , , 522 (Minn. 2011) ("[T]he Equal Protection Clause ...

Therefore appellant cannot show that “similarly situated persons have been treated differently,” Paquin v. Mack , and this showing is a threshold requirement to make out an equal -protection claim, State v. Cox , d 517, 521 (Minn. 2011).

violates the Equal Protection Clause.” An equal-protection challenge requires an initial showing that “similarly situated persons have been treated differently.” (quotation omitted).

A reviewing court pres umes that “Minnesota statut es are constitutional and will strike down a statute as unconstitutiona l only if absolutely necessary.” (citation omitted).

Johnson , d at 12 ; see also State v. Cox , , 521 (Minn. 2011) ("[T]he Equal Protection Clause ...

To prevail, a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a constitutional provision.” (citation omitted).

State v. Cox , , 519 (Minn. 2011).

An equal-protection challenge requires an initial showing that “similarly situated persons have been treated differently.” (quotation omitted).

Schatz, d at 656-57; Doll, d at 462-63; & n.3 (Minn. 2015 ).

The focus when determining whether groups of people are similarly situated is whether “they are alike in all relevant respects.”

The two crimes have different intent requirements, (), and our interpretation of the phrase “past consideration" does not affect the element of intent.