Legal Opinion

New London Nursing Home, Inc. v. Lindeman

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 4, 1986No. C2-85-1895PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PARKER, Judge.

New London Nursing Home, Inc., challenges the constitutionality of a statute requiring its experience rating account to be charged in part for unemployment compensation benefits paid to respondent Leann V. Lindeman. The Commissioner of Economic Security upheld the statute but declined to consider the constitutional challenge due to lack of jurisdiction. We find the statute unconstitutional as applied and therefore reverse the Commissioner’s decision.

FACTS

Leann Lindeman is employed part-time as a nurse’s aide at the Glen Oaks Nursing Home. She works two eight-hour shifts…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. ColemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Eldred v. Division of Employment and SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
  4. General Mills, Inc. v. Division of Employment & SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  5. Shreve v. Department of Economic SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., Lodge 1090Supreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  2. Lyons v. Health & Human Services DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  3. St. Otto's Home v. Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  4. Rate Appeal of Midway Care Center, Inc. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
  5. Lange v. Lange Underground Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API