Fisher v. Jim Lupient Auto Mall

Minnesota Supreme Court
Fisher v. Jim Lupient Auto Mall, 904 N.W.2d 447 (Minn. 2017)
Chutich, Stras

Fisher v. Jim Lupient Auto Mall

Opinion of the Court

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 March 1, 2017, 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/ Margaret H. Chutich Margaret H. Chutich, Associate Judge

Dissenting Opinion

STRAS, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the court’s order in this case because I would have scheduled the case for oral argument in light of the submissions of the parties. See also Tambornino v. Health Risk Mgmt., 787 N.W.2d 540, 541 (Minn. 2010) (order) (Stras, J., dissenting).

Reference

Full Case Name
Paul E. FISHER v. JIM LUPIENT AUTO MALL, Self-Insured/SFM Risk Solutions, Inc., Relators
Status
Published