A06-1980 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Ball Ex Rel. Mancino v. Pear One, Inc.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed January 24, 2007 · 726 N.W.2d 454

The holding in the court’s own words

We further conclude that relator has not overcome the presumption that Minn.Stat.

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

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 18, 2006, 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). 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