Boone v. Pittsburgh Pipe & Supply Corp.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Boone v. Pittsburgh Pipe & Supply Corp.

525 S.W.3d 214, 2017 WL 3597017, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 803

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105325

StatusPublished

This text of 525 S.W.3d 214 (Boone v. Pittsburgh Pipe & Supply Corp.) 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

Boone v. Pittsburgh Pipe & Supply Corp., 525 S.W.3d 214, 2017 WL 3597017, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 803 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Pittsburgh Pipe & Supply Corporation (“Employer") appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”), which found that Angela Boone was not disqualified from unemployment benefits after her termination from Employer because of misconduct connected with work. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The evidence in support of the Commission’s order was not insufficient. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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

Pittsburgh Pipe & Supply Corporation (“Employer") appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”), which found that Angela Boone was not disqualified from unemployment benefits after her termination from Employer because of misconduct connected with work. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The evidence in support of the Commission’s order was not insufficient. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 S.W.3d 214, 2017 WL 3597017, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boone-v-pittsburgh-pipe-supply-corp-moctapp-2017.