Skelley v. Lucent Technologies

722 N.W.2d 927, 2006 Minn. LEXIS 770, 2006 WL 3095551
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided October 25, 2006·No. A06-1358·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*928 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 June 27, 2006, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (explaining that, [s]ummary affirmances have no precedential 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/ Russell A. Anderson Chief Justice

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

Skelley v. Lucent Technologies, 722 N.W.2d 927, 2006 Minn. LEXIS 770, 2006 WL 3095551 (Mich. 2006).

722 N.W.2d 927 (Skelley v. Lucent Technologies) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In RE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST DeVAUGHN
722 N.W.2d 927 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2006)