Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.
This text of 726 N.W.2d 454 (Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed September 18, 2006, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (explaining that, “[sjummary affirmances have no prece-dential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view,” doing no more than establishing the law of the case). We further conclude that relator has not overcome the presumption that Minn.Stat. § 176.183 (2004) is constitutional.
Respondent is awarded $1,200 in attorney fees.
BY THE COURT:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
726 N.W.2d 454, 2007 Minn. LEXIS 48, 2007 WL 273563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-ex-rel-mancino-v-pear-one-inc-minn-2007.