Skelley v. Lucent Technologies

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Skelley v. Lucent Technologies

722 N.W.2d 927, 2006 Minn. LEXIS 770, 2006 WL 3095551

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 25, 2006

DocketA06-1358

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 722 N.W.2d 927 (Skelley v. Lucent Technologies) 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.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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