Fisher v. Jim Lupient Auto Mall
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:
Dissenting Opinion
(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