Anderson v. Printpack Georgia

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. Printpack Georgia

188 S.W.3d 129, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2006 WL 851775

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 2006

DocketED 86689

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 S.W.3d 129 (Anderson v. Printpack Georgia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Printpack Georgia, 188 S.W.3d 129, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2006 WL 851775 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Anderson (hereinafter, “Employee”) appeals pro se from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (hereinafter, “the Commission”) decision, reversing the decision by the Appeals Tribunal. The Commission found Employee was disqualified for unemployment benefits due to misconduct connected with his work. Employee claims the Commission erred in: failing to affirm the determination of the Appeals Tribunal; basing its decision on Employee’s intentions; failing to look at a factory environment job description; and overlooking the cause and effect.

We have reviewed the brief and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The Commission’s decision is affirmed. No precedential or jurisprudential purposes would be served by an opinion restating the detailed facts and the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Anderson (hereinafter, “Employee”) appeals pro se from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (hereinafter, “the Commission”) decision, reversing the decision by the Appeals Tribunal. The Commission found Employee was disqualified for unemployment benefits due to misconduct connected with his work. Employee claims the Commission erred in: failing to affirm the determination of the Appeals Tribunal; basing its decision on Employee’s intentions; failing to look at a factory environment job description; and overlooking the cause and effect.

We have reviewed the brief and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The Commission’s decision is affirmed. No precedential or jurisprudential purposes would be served by an opinion restating the detailed facts and the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 S.W.3d 129, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2006 WL 851775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-printpack-georgia-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack