McDaniel v. Cory’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2024
18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Infelice v. United States · Jackson v. Concord Company · Keiner v. City of Anchorage · Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Lysyj · Iron Workers Local No. 67 v. Hart
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The language of [AS 22.10.020(c)] is clearly intended to provide a litigant complete relief in an appropriate case. In view of the strong statement of purpose in enacting AS 18.80, and its avowed determination to protect the civil rights of all Alaska citizens, we believe that the legislature intended to put as many “teeth” into this law as possible. We fail to see how, consistent with that purpose and intent, the legislature could have contemplated a statutory scheme that would not have included the right to recover damages. Otherwise, there would be many cases in which no meaningful relief would be available to the injured party, the one whose civil rights have been violated and whom the law seeks to protect. We believe that the broad language of AS 22.10.020(c) indicates a legislative intent to authorize an award of compensatory and punitive damages for violations of AS 18.80, in addition to the equitable remedies such as enjoining illegal employment activities and ordering back pay as a form of restitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where costs are allowed in the appellate court, attorney’s fees may also be allowed in an amount to be determined by the court. If the court determines that an appeal or cross-appeal is frivolous or that it has been brought simply for the purposes of delay, actual attorney’s fees may be awarded to the appellee or cross-appellee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“no statutory authority exists which gives the Commission the power to award damages to complainants in public accommodation discrimination cases.”) Following McDaniel , we will narrowly interpret a statute as to the question of whether it grants the agency discretion to promulgate rules. 2 . AS 08.88.455 states in part,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Warner v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.