Evans v. Schneider National, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Evans v. Schneider National, Inc.

934 S.W.2d 4, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1584, 1996 WL 536995

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 1996

DocketNo. 70041

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 934 S.W.2d 4 (Evans v. Schneider National, 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

Evans v. Schneider National, Inc., 934 S.W.2d 4, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1584, 1996 WL 536995 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Benjamin Evans, appeals from the award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding appellant’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment as a truck driver for respondent, Schneider National, Inc., and denying compensation. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the award was supported by sufficient and competent evidence, was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Benjamin Evans, appeals from the award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding appellant’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment as a truck driver for respondent, Schneider National, Inc., and denying compensation. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the award was supported by sufficient and competent evidence, was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 S.W.2d 4, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1584, 1996 WL 536995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-schneider-national-inc-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack