Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 239 N.W.2d 197.

60 citing documents.

Mariam Aromashodu, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minneapolis Police Dep’t v. Kelly, (), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Melissa Casanova, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
spect to public services of one or more persons when compared to the treatment accorded others similarly situated except for the existence of an impermissible factor such as race, co lor, creed, sex, etc.; or (2) treatment so at variance with what would reasonably be anticipated absent discrimination that discrimination is the probable explanation.” See City of Minneap olis v. Richardson
Stacey Marable, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
an adverse difference in treatment with respect to public services of one or more persons 18 when compared to the treatment accorded others similarly situated except for the existence of an impermissible factor such as race, color, creed, sex, etc.”
LaFayette Temple, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
district court interpreted the phrase “similarly situated” too narrowly, and he relies on City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, which states that in cases in which a comparison is essentially impossible, “it is re asonable to require a prima facie showing of treatment so at variance with what would reasonably be anticipated absent discrimination that discrimination is the probable explanation.” 307 Minn. 80, 87
In the Matter of all Licenses Held by Pet Motortech, Inc., d/b/a Pet Auto Repair, for the premises … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of all Licenses Held by Pet Motortech, Inc., d/b/a Pet Auto Repair, for the premises … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
City of Minneapolis v. 5 Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Discrimination may be demonstrated with proof of a difference in treatment of similarly situated individuals who are of a different race than the complainant or proof that the treatment of the complainant was “so at variance with what would reasonably be anticipated absent discrimination.” City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 87
Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly 776 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. 751 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2008
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. 751 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2008
Using the Restatement as our guide is supported by our decision in City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 92-93
CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 633 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 633 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Ploetz 597 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 91 , (concluding city was liable for punitive damages levied against some of its police officers for their discriminatory treatment of perpetrator).
In Re the Welfare of S.M.J. 556 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of S.M.J. 556 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Beaulieu, d at 571 (quoting City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 87 , ).
Bilal v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 537 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1995
Bilal v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 537 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1995
See City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80 , (instructing that the MHRA is designed to proscribe “distinction in treatment of individuals based upon impermissible or irrelevant factors such as race, color, creed, sex, etc.”).
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 518 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1994
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 518 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1994
In *571 City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 87 , we stated that an unfair discriminatory practice under section 363.03, subd.
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 498 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 498 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 89 , (applying Minn.Stat.
Rosenbloom v. Flygare 487 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Rosenbloom v. Flygare 487 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Respondent relies on City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Moorhead State University 455 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Moorhead State University 455 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B. 452 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B. 452 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Potter v. LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club, City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 91 , see also Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (noting, in a wrongful discharge case, that “punitive damages are appropriate when otherwise wrongs may go unredressed.”); Wilson, d at 150 (noting punitive damages are appropriate in actions w
In Re the Proposed Activation of the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n 408 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Proposed Activation of the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n 408 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
see also City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
Levingston v. Ramsey County Community Human Services Department 388 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Levingston v. Ramsey County Community Human Services Department 388 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
Potter v. LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club 384 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1986
Potter v. LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club 384 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1986
In City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80 , construing similar language in the Minnesota Human Rights Act, we upheld an award of punitive damages despite the absence of a compensatory award.
Potter v. LaSalle Sports & Health Club 368 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Potter v. LaSalle Sports & Health Club 368 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
However, in City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80 , an action pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the supreme court did uphold a punitive damage award not accompanied by an award of actual or compensatory damages.
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 370 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 370 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Distinguished State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We distinguish the case of City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80 , wherein Minneapolis was held liable for acts of police officers.
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80 , the court reviewed a punitive damage award under the 1971 law, which provided in part: The panel or examiner may order the respondent to pay the charging party compensatory damages, except damages for mental anguish or suffering, and may also order the respondent to pay the charging party puni
State Ex Rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Office of County Auditor Ex Rel. Anderson 347 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State Ex Rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Office of County Auditor Ex Rel. Anderson 347 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 88
Cybyske v. Independent School District No. 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley 347 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1984
Lamb v. Village of Bagley 310 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1981