Divers v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Divers v. Division of Employment Security

344 S.W.3d 729, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 2011 WL 1234707

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 2011

DocketWD 72655, WD 72656

StatusPublished

This text of 344 S.W.3d 729 (Divers v. Division of Employment 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

Divers v. Division of Employment Security, 344 S.W.3d 729, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 2011 WL 1234707 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Divers appeals from a decision issued by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) finding that he voluntarily quit his employment with the Winstead’s Company (‘Winstead’s”) and was, therefore, ineligible for unemployment benefits. In addition, he challenges a separate decision issued by the Commission finding that Divers had been overpaid benefits from a previous claim when he continued to receive unemployment benefits while he was employed by Winstead’s and for several weeks after his employment there ceased. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Commission’s order is supported by sufficient competent evidence in the record, that the Commission acted within its powers, that the decision was not procured by fraud, and that the facts found by the Commission support the award. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Divers appeals from a decision issued by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) finding that he voluntarily quit his employment with the Winstead’s Company (‘Winstead’s”) and was, therefore, ineligible for unemployment benefits. In addition, he challenges a separate decision issued by the Commission finding that Divers had been overpaid benefits from a previous claim when he continued to receive unemployment benefits while he was employed by Winstead’s and for several weeks after his employment there ceased. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Commission’s order is supported by sufficient competent evidence in the record, that the Commission acted within its powers, that the decision was not procured by fraud, and that the facts found by the Commission support the award. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 S.W.3d 729, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 2011 WL 1234707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/divers-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2011.