With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.” Minn. Const, art. I, § 8. Minnesota courts have never stated that the right to sue a governmental entity is “fundamental” for the purpose of invoking strict scrutiny. Further, when reviewing constitutional challenges to other governmental immunity statutes, courts have applied a rational-basis test rather than strict scrutiny. See, e.g., Bernthal v. City of St. Paul, 376 N.W.2d 422, 424 & n. 5 (Minn.1985) (noting that all constitutional challenges of the municipal tort liability statute have required application of the rational-basis test); Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn.1984) (<HOLDING>); Lloyd v. City of St. Paul, 538 N.W.2d 921,

A: holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection
B: holding that central assessment by the unit method of valuation did not violate the equal protection clause of the united states constitution or the uniform operation of laws provision in the utah constitution
C: holding that state outdoor recreational immunity statute did not violate equal protection clause of united states constitution under rationalbasis test
D: holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
C.