Graffius v. Control Data Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A civil cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act is authorized to grant the forms of relief enumerated in Minn.Stat. Secs. 363.071, subd. 2 and 363.14, subd. 2. Lost consortium is not an authorized remedy. Further, compensatory dama ges are authorized only for an aggrieved party ‘who has suffered discrimination’. Since Graffius’ husband was not the victim of discrimination, the trial court was not authorized to compensate him. “We are aware of our duty to construe the Minnesota Human Rights Act liberally to accomplish its purposes. Continental Can Co. v. State, 297 N.W.2d 241, 248 (Minn. 1980). However, the general purpose of the act is to place the individual who has suffered discrimination in the same position he or she would have been in had no discrimination occurred. This policy would not be enhanced by recognizing a cause of action for consortium. It is contrary to the express words of the act and would not promote the underlying policy of the act. We hold that such a claim is not allowed under the act. The trial court’s finding that Graffius’ husband is entitled to damages against appellant is therefore reversed.” (Cita omitida.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martínez Campos v. Banco de Ponce