section below

Citation: section below
Parent Document: Donaldson v. State of Montana, 2012 MT 288 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 2012-12-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/889962/donaldson-v-state-of-montana/ ↗

Full Text

1,237 chars

In considering whether two classes are similarly situated, a court
       cannot simply look at the trait used by the legislature to define a
       classification under a statute and conclude a person without that trait is not
       similarly situated to persons with the trait. The equal protection clause
       does not merely ensure the challenged statute applies equally to all people
       in the legislative classification. “Similarly situated” cannot mean simply
       “similar in the possession of the classifying trait.” All members of any
       class are similarly situated in this respect and consequently, any
       classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test. In the same
       way, the similarly situated requirement cannot possibly be interpreted to
       require plaintiffs to be identical in every way to people treated more
       favorably by the law. No two people or groups of people are the same in
       every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground
       onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a
       mirror image of one another. Such a threshold analysis would hollow out
       the constitution’s promise of equal protection.

Other Sections in This Document (2523)

Full Text