Conrey v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Conrey v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

190 S.W.3d 569, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 607, 2006 WL 1147747

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86935

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 569 (Conrey v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security) 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

Conrey v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 190 S.W.3d 569, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 607, 2006 WL 1147747 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John J. Conrey (“Claimant”), appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) in favor of Respondents, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Transportation Security Administration (collectively “Employer”) and Division of Employment Security. The Commission determined that Claimant is disqualified for unemployment benefits because he was discharged by Employer for misconduct connected with work. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential *570 purpose, we affirm the Commission’s decision 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.

Appellant, John J. Conrey (“Claimant”), appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) in favor of Respondents, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Transportation Security Administration (collectively “Employer”) and Division of Employment Security. The Commission determined that Claimant is disqualified for unemployment benefits because he was discharged by Employer for misconduct connected with work. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential *570 purpose, we affirm the Commission’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 569, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 607, 2006 WL 1147747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conrey-v-us-department-of-homeland-security-moctapp-2006.