Clinton v. AMERICAN ARMORED TRANPORT, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Clinton v. AMERICAN ARMORED TRANPORT, INC.

341 S.W.3d 219, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 667, 2011 WL 1875076

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2011

DocketED 95555

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 219 (Clinton v. AMERICAN ARMORED TRANPORT, INC.) 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

Clinton v. AMERICAN ARMORED TRANPORT, INC., 341 S.W.3d 219, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 667, 2011 WL 1875076 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Denise Clinton (Claimant) appeals the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her unemployment benefits. A Division deputy with the Missouri Division of Employment Security *220 initially determined that Claimant was eligible, finding that she was not terminated for misconduct. Employer appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which reversed the decision of the deputy. Claimant then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission which affirmed the decision of the Tribunal.

On appeal, Claimant argues that her employer failed to meet its burden of establishing that she was discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Denise Clinton (Claimant) appeals the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her unemployment benefits. A Division deputy with the Missouri Division of Employment Security *220 initially determined that Claimant was eligible, finding that she was not terminated for misconduct. Employer appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which reversed the decision of the deputy. Claimant then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission which affirmed the decision of the Tribunal.

On appeal, Claimant argues that her employer failed to meet its burden of establishing that she was discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 219, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 667, 2011 WL 1875076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clinton-v-american-armored-tranport-inc-moctapp-2011.