Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 27, 1988No. C9-88-1021Published

1DissentNierengarten, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Although I may disagree with the decision of the referee and the Commissioner’s representative, I would affirm because the “narrow standard of review” on appeal requires this court to defer to the Commissioner’s factual findings. See Reserve Mining Co. v. Gorecki, 316 N.W.2d 547, 549 (Minn.1982); see also, Nyberg v. R.N. Cardozo & Brother, Inc., 243 Minn. 361, 364, 67 N.W.2d 821, 823 (1954). The Commissioner’s findings must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the decision and cannot be disturbed “if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them.” Reserve…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lisa Marz v. Department of Employment ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Nyberg v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  3. Larson v. Department of Economic SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. RESERVE MIN. CO., BABBITT DIV. v. GoreckiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. Turnquist v. Amoco Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API