Becker v. St. Charles County

Missouri Court of Appeals

Becker v. St. Charles County

230 S.W.3d 9, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 965, 2007 WL 1815424

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2007

DocketED 89036

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 S.W.3d 9 (Becker v. St. Charles County) 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

Becker v. St. Charles County, 230 S.W.3d 9, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 965, 2007 WL 1815424 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

St. Charles County (“County’) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) affirming and adopting the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security (“Division”) in awarding waiting week credit and benefits to Monica Becker (“Claimant”). The County argues the Commission erred in finding that Claimant qualified for benefits because there was not sufficient competent evidence to support the Commission’s award under Section 288.050, RSMo. Cum. Supp.2006. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this 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.

St. Charles County (“County’) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) affirming and adopting the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security (“Division”) in awarding waiting week credit and benefits to Monica Becker (“Claimant”). The County argues the Commission erred in finding that Claimant qualified for benefits because there was not sufficient competent evidence to support the Commission’s award under Section 288.050, RSMo. Cum. Supp.2006. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 S.W.3d 9, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 965, 2007 WL 1815424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-st-charles-county-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack