State v. Russell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentCoyne, Justice
I respectfully dissent: First, because the majority has abandoned the recognized rule for reviewing a facially neutral crime control statute in favor of an activist form of judicial review which allows the court to substitute its view of the basis for and efficacy of the statute for that of the legislature; and second, because, based on its assumption that crack cocaine and cocaine powder are identical substances — a matter on which experts disagree — the majority proceeds on the false premise that the legislature may not found a legislative distinction on differences in the form and…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Washington v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- McCleskey v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Oyler v. BolesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.