Brown v. City of Cottleville

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brown v. City of Cottleville

442 S.W.3d 138, 2014 WL 2883504, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 702

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 24, 2014·No. No. ED 100654·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Employer City of Cottleville, Missouri, (“Cottleville”) appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) determining that employee [139] Chad Brown is eligible for unemployment benefits. The Commission rejected Cot-tleville’s claim that Brown was terminated for misconduct connected to work. We affirm the Commission’s order.

No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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.

Employer City of Cottleville, Missouri, (“Cottleville”) appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) determining that employee [139] Chad Brown is eligible for unemployment benefits. The Commission rejected Cot-tleville’s claim that Brown was terminated for misconduct connected to work. We affirm the Commission’s order.

No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).

Brown v. City of Cottleville, 442 S.W.3d 138, 2014 WL 2883504, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

442 S.W.3d 138 (Brown v. City of Cottleville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.