History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.
2007 Minn. LEXIS 48
| Minn. | 2007
|
Check Treatment
726 N.W.2d 454 (2007)

Charles BALL, by Diana MANCINO, Respondent,
v.
PEAR ONE, INC./Craig REBERS, and Uninsured, Relator, and
Special Compensation Fund.

No. A06-1980.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 24, 2007.

Joseph J. Dudley, Jr., Dudley and Smith, St. Paul, MN, for Relator.

Lorelie M. Hoyer, St. Paul, MN, for Special Compensation Fund.

Todd J. Thun, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents.

Considered and decided by the court en banc.

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, "[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). 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

Case Details

Case Name: Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Jan 24, 2007
Citation: 2007 Minn. LEXIS 48
Docket Number: A06-1980
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.