Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kempton, 31 7 N. W .2d 3 61, 3 66 (Minn. 19 82) (Explaining That Summary Affirmances Lack
Kempton, 31 7 N. W .2d 3 61, 3 66 (Minn. 19 82) (Explaining That Summary Affirmances Lack
Kempton, 31 7 N. W .2d 3 61, 3 66 (Minn. 19 82) (Explaining That Summary Affirmances Lack
IN SUPREME COURT
A21-0702
James Senftner,
Relator,
vs.
and
ACE USA,
Respondents.
James S. Pikala, Emily A. Lacourse, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondents.
ORDER
of Appeals filed May 4, 2021, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hojf v.
Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn. 19 82) (explaining that summary affirmances lack
1
precedential value "because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view,"
and because they "do no more than establish the law of the case").
G. Barry Anderson
Associate Justice