context: . Of particular relevance to the challenge made by Keyes here is the rule that the federal due process guarantee does not "prevent a state from prescribing a reasonable and appropriate condition precedent to the bringing of a suit of a specified kind or class so long as the basis of distinction is real and the condition imposed has reasonable relation to a legitimate object."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 256 N.W.2d 668, 668
citation_a.parenthetical: legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions
citation_a.sentence: Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 264 U.S. 171, 181
citation_b.parenthetical: upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients
citation_b.sentence: Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 181, 44 S.Ct. 280, 282, 68 L.Ed. 623, 628 (1924) (upholding state statute providing that no suit for damages to crops resulting from fertilizer use may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients); see also Prendergast, 256 N.W.2d at 668 (legislature may pass law which seeks to distinguish between different types of tort actions so long as distinctions are reasonable and grounded upon real differences inherent in those actions).