Gustafson v. FULL SERVICE MAINTENANCE CORP.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gustafson v. FULL SERVICE MAINTENANCE CORP.

352 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1176, 2011 WL 4048387

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 2011

DocketED 96253

StatusPublished

This text of 352 S.W.3d 369 (Gustafson v. FULL SERVICE MAINTENANCE CORP.) 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

Gustafson v. FULL SERVICE MAINTENANCE CORP., 352 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1176, 2011 WL 4048387 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melissa Gustafson (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying her petition for unemployment benefits. Claimant argues the Commission erred: (1) in finding she committed misconduct; (2) in failing to investigate whether Dennis Fahy (“Fahy”) committed perjury; and (3) in failing to inquire into Claimant’s allegation that Fahy subjected her to abusive conduct and profane language.

*370 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Melissa Gustafson (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying her petition for unemployment benefits. Claimant argues the Commission erred: (1) in finding she committed misconduct; (2) in failing to investigate whether Dennis Fahy (“Fahy”) committed perjury; and (3) in failing to inquire into Claimant’s allegation that Fahy subjected her to abusive conduct and profane language.

*370 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1176, 2011 WL 4048387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustafson-v-full-service-maintenance-corp-moctapp-2011.