Moore v. CAL SPAS OF MINNESOTA

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Moore v. CAL SPAS OF MINNESOTA

764 N.W.2d 816, 2009 Minn. LEXIS 281, 2009 WL 1339869

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 5, 2009·No. A08-2084·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 November 13, 2008, 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).

Employee is awarded $1,200 in attorney fees.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Helen M. Meyer Associate Justice

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

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 November 13, 2008, 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).

Employee is awarded $1,200 in attorney fees.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Helen M. Meyer Associate Justice

Moore v. CAL SPAS OF MINNESOTA, 764 N.W.2d 816, 2009 Minn. LEXIS 281, 2009 WL 1339869 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

764 N.W.2d 816 (Moore v. CAL SPAS OF MINNESOTA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related