BELPULSI v. Charles Schmitt & Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

BELPULSI v. Charles Schmitt & Co.

179 S.W.3d 905, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1932, 2005 WL 3527666

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 2005

DocketED 85976

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 905 (BELPULSI v. Charles Schmitt & Co.) 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

BELPULSI v. Charles Schmitt & Co., 179 S.W.3d 905, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1932, 2005 WL 3527666 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Dolores Belpulsi (“Claimant”), appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) in favor of Respondents, Charles Schmitt & Company (“Employer”) and Division of Employment Security (“the Division”). The Commission adopted the decision of the Division’s appeals tribunal affirming a deputy’s determination that Claimant is not entitled to unemployment benefits because she voluntarily quit her job with Employer without good cause attributable to her work or Employer. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the Commission’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Dolores Belpulsi (“Claimant”), appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) in favor of Respondents, Charles Schmitt & Company (“Employer”) and Division of Employment Security (“the Division”). The Commission adopted the decision of the Division’s appeals tribunal affirming a deputy’s determination that Claimant is not entitled to unemployment benefits because she voluntarily quit her job with Employer without good cause attributable to her work or Employer. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the Commission’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 905, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1932, 2005 WL 3527666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belpulsi-v-charles-schmitt-co-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack