A04-2071
Precedential
Affirmed
Processed
King v. Woodsman Midwest, Inc.
King v. Woodsman Midwest, Inc., 693 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 2005).
Cited by
- Jennifer Odegaard v. 610 MOB Partners, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- In the Matter of the Denial of Line of Duty Death Benefits for Dallas … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Jacob Pries v. Whitewater Dairy, LLC, et al., vs. Bruce Kreofsky & Sons, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Charles Andrew Herold v. Grande Market Place Limited Partnership, Building Maintenance Management, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Regina Gower v. City of Edina Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Karen Marie Firman v. Town & Country Campground Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Ann Massert v. Radisson Blue MOA, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- Brandon Grim v. City of Zumbro Falls Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- Robert C. Tengdin, Trustee of the Robert C. Tengdin Revocable Trust dated May 18, … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- Isaac C. Johnson, et al v. Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a Pulte Homes, … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- Paul Boyum v. Federal National Mortgage Association "Fannie Mae", et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- Sandra D’Antonio, et al v. Jennifer Lynn Martinez, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Hoff v. Kempton 317 N.W.2d 361
Opinion text
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 30, 2004, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (summary dispositions 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). BY THE COURT: /s/ Kathleen A. Blatz Chief Justice