Childers v. Customer Direct, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Childers v. Customer Direct, LLC

443 S.W.3d 49, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1051, 2014 WL 4702823

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 2014

DocketNo. ED 101252

StatusPublished

This text of 443 S.W.3d 49 (Childers v. Customer Direct, LLC) 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

Childers v. Customer Direct, LLC, 443 S.W.3d 49, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1051, 2014 WL 4702823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Chüders (Employee) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) denying him unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision, and the Commission did not err as a matter of law in finding Employee engaged in misconduct connected with work. Berwin v. Lindenwood Female College, 205 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Chüders (Employee) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) denying him unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision, and the Commission did not err as a matter of law in finding Employee engaged in misconduct connected with work. Berwin v. Lindenwood Female College, 205 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 S.W.3d 49, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1051, 2014 WL 4702823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childers-v-customer-direct-llc-moctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack