Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

A Law Which Does Not Substantially Infringe Upon Rights

Adoptive parents' rights exist only because the legislature created them.

Anguis v. Superior Court, 6 Ariz. App. 68, 72, 429 P.2d 702, 706 (1967). Nevertheless, the legislature must act even-handedly when it grants benefits to one group and denies them to another. Tanner Cos. v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 141, 146, 696 P.2d 693, 698 (1985).

"Thus, the legislature may discriminate between classes only if all those in a given class are treated equally and the classifications are not unreasonable." Id.

The court will uphold a law that implicates either a suspect classification or a fundamental right only if the law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. Wigglesworth v. Mauldin, 195 Ariz. 432, 438, 990 P.2d 26, P19 (App. 1999).

But, "when a law does not substantially infringe upon a person's fundamental rights we examine the challenged statute under the rational basis standard of review.

That is, we will uphold the law if it is reasonably related to a legitimate state objective." Graville, 195 Ariz. 119 at 125, P22, 985 P.2d 604 at 610 (citing San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973)).