Blount v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR CO.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blount v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR CO.

254 S.W.3d 917, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 782, 2008 WL 2346216

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 2008

DocketED 91232

StatusPublished

This text of 254 S.W.3d 917 (Blount v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 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

Blount v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR CO., 254 S.W.3d 917, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 782, 2008 WL 2346216 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Chief Judge.

Kquian Blount (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review of the denial of unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, because she left work without good cause attributable to her work or employer. She filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which affirmed the deputy’s decision. The Appeals Tribunal mailed this decision to Claimant on January 8, 2008. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission dismissed the application for review as untimely. Claimant appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, asserting this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal because the application for review to the Commission was untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

An aggrieved party may file an application for review with the Commission within thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on January 8, 2008. Therefore, Claimant’s application for review was due thirty days later, on February 7, 2008. Section 288.200.1. Claimant faxed the application for review to the Commission on February 8, 2008, which is untimely under section 288.200.1.

Filing a timely application for review is a jurisdictional requirement in both the Commission and in this Court. Miller v. Pasta House Co., 237 S.W.3d 261, 262 *918 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). If a timely application for review is not filed, then the Commission has no jurisdiction and thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction. The unemployment statutes provide no exceptions to the thirty-day filing requirement. Without jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss it.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

BOOKER T. SHAW, and NANNETTE A. BAKER, JJ., Concur.

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

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Chief Judge.

Kquian Blount (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review of the denial of unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, because she left work without good cause attributable to her work or employer. She filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which affirmed the deputy’s decision. The Appeals Tribunal mailed this decision to Claimant on January 8, 2008. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission dismissed the application for review as untimely. Claimant appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, asserting this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal because the application for review to the Commission was untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

An aggrieved party may file an application for review with the Commission within thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on January 8, 2008. Therefore, Claimant’s application for review was due thirty days later, on February 7, 2008. Section 288.200.1. Claimant faxed the application for review to the Commission on February 8, 2008, which is untimely under section 288.200.1.

Filing a timely application for review is a jurisdictional requirement in both the Commission and in this Court. Miller v. Pasta House Co., 237 S.W.3d 261, 262 *918 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). If a timely application for review is not filed, then the Commission has no jurisdiction and thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction. The unemployment statutes provide no exceptions to the thirty-day filing requirement. Without jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss it.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

BOOKER T. SHAW, and NANNETTE A. BAKER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 917, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 782, 2008 WL 2346216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blount-v-enterprise-rent-a-car-co-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack