scrutiny is not harmonious with the analysis of claims brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”); Cooper v. Or. Sch. Activities Ass’n, 52 Or. App. 425, 629 P.2d 386, 395 (1981) (“We are aware that one state court has used over-breadth as a basis for declaring a similar transfer rule to be in Activities Ass’n, 682 F.2d 147 (8th Cir.1982) (upholding transfer rule denying eligibility for one year after transfer as denying neither equal protection nor due process of the federal Constitution); Walsh v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 616 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.1980) (finding Louisiana’s version of transfer rule not to violate equal protection rights of transferring students); Barnhorst v. Mo. State Sch. Activities Ass’n, 504 F.Supp. 449 (W.D.Mo.1980) (<HOLDING>); Kulovitz v. Ill. High Sch. Ass’n, 462 F.Supp.
holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding missouri transfer rule did not violate equal protection holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding illinois high school associations version of the transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection