Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Neve v. Austin Daily Herald

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 13, 1996No. C9-96-156Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShort, Judge

I concur as to the result because the record does not reasonably support the Commissioner’s finding of a master-servant relationship. However, I dissent from the application of de novo review to the inferences that may be drawn from predicate facts.

Although we are free to review de novo the application of law to undisputed facts, the existence of an employment relationship constitutes the “ultimate fact issue,” which cannot be decided as a matter of law simply because the predicate facts are uncontested. See Darvell v. Paul A. Laurence Co., 239 Minn. 55, 62, 57 N.W.2d 831, 835 (1953) (stating…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  2. Frankle v. TwedtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  3. Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational ChurchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API