Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.

726 N.W.2d 454, 2007 Minn. LEXIS 48, 2007 WL 273563
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 24, 2007·No. A06-1980·Published

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:

/s/Lorie S. Gildea Associate Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc., 726 N.W.2d 454, 2007 Minn. LEXIS 48, 2007 WL 273563 (Mich. 2007).

726 N.W.2d 454 (Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hoff v. Kempton
317 N.W.2d 361 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1982)