The Massachusetts high court dissent conceded the plaintiff’s factual case against Harvard.

Evidence

When it finally became public, I saw that the decision was ninety-one pages long. I don’t know why but I scrolled to the last page and read the conclusion—it was a stinging indictment of Harvard. … “The result reached by the court underscores the need for the cause of action I have articulated in order to provide a full remedy for the harms alleged by the plaintiff. Failing to recognize that the plaintiff, as a descendant of Renty and Delia, may have a claim to the daguerreotypes superior to Harvard’s is precisely the sort of miscarriage of justice that the late Chief Justice [Ralph] Gants warned us against perpetuating. We are faced with an aggrieved plaintiff who has pleaded facts that, if proved, demand a full remedy and nothing less. It is within this court’s authority to provide such remedy by recognizing the cause of action I have articulated today.” — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 1294

Categorization

• QUESTION: This is the dissenting opinion — need to identify who wrote it and what the actual holding was, since this conclusion concedes the facts but the court still ruled against Lanier on the law.