Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alcozer v. North Country Food Bank

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 29, 2001No. CX-01-19Published

1DissentPaul H. Anderson, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The narrow issue before the court is whether relator, Arturo Aleozer, an injured workfare worker, is an employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act. I conclude that he is. The facts of this case, the plain language of the statute, and our case law all dictate a holding that Aleozer is an employee who should not be excluded from the fundamental protection of our workers’ compensation law. Such a holding is consistent with the purpose of the Act and related statutory schemes and it avoids offending well-established public policy principles. Further, unlike the…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Romer v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Breimhorst v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  5. Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of RosevilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

25 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