Arnold v. Kernz Group Fine Arts Express Services

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arnold v. Kernz Group Fine Arts Express Services

372 S.W.3d 926, 2012 WL 3291991, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 978

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 14, 2012·No. No. ED 97627·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Arnold (Claimant) appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her claim for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error in any of the respects alleged. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the Commission’s order 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.

Patricia Arnold (Claimant) appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her claim for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error in any of the respects alleged. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the Commission’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Arnold v. Kernz Group Fine Arts Express Services, 372 S.W.3d 926, 2012 WL 3291991, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 978 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

372 S.W.3d 926 (Arnold v. Kernz Group Fine Arts Express Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.