J & a INDUSTRIES, INC. v. McSPARREN

Missouri Court of Appeals

J & a INDUSTRIES, INC. v. McSPARREN

350 S.W.3d 42, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2011 WL 4549426

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

DocketWD 73452

StatusPublished

This text of 350 S.W.3d 42 (J & a INDUSTRIES, INC. v. McSPARREN) 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

J & a INDUSTRIES, INC. v. McSPARREN, 350 S.W.3d 42, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2011 WL 4549426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

J & A Industries, Inc. appeals from an order issued by the Labor & Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) awarding unemployment benefits to Rodney McSparren based upon a finding that he was not terminated from his employment with J & A for misconduct related to work. 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 produced by fraud, and that the facts found by the Commission support the award. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published *43 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:

J & A Industries, Inc. appeals from an order issued by the Labor & Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) awarding unemployment benefits to Rodney McSparren based upon a finding that he was not terminated from his employment with J & A for misconduct related to work. 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 produced by fraud, and that the facts found by the Commission support the award. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published *43 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)

350 S.W.3d 42, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2011 WL 4549426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-a-industries-inc-v-mcsparren-moctapp-2011.