Jansen v. CONTRACT TRANSPORT, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jansen v. CONTRACT TRANSPORT, INC.

348 S.W.3d 133, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2011 WL 4038650

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 2011

DocketED 96102

StatusPublished

This text of 348 S.W.3d 133 (Jansen v. CONTRACT TRANSPORT, 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

Jansen v. CONTRACT TRANSPORT, INC., 348 S.W.3d 133, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2011 WL 4038650 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Jansen (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying his petition for unemployment benefits. Claimant argues the Commission erred in concluding Contract Transport, Inc. (“Employer”) met its burden to prove Claimant committed misconduct because: (1) Claimant’s practice of telephoning Employer to inform Employer he was running late as soon as was practical was not negligent to such a degree as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, and Claimant did not willfully violate any policy of Employer; and (2) the facts found by the Commission do not support the award in that the Commission incorrectly concluded Claimant did not telephone Employer on all three occasions when he was running late.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties *134 have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Jansen (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying his petition for unemployment benefits. Claimant argues the Commission erred in concluding Contract Transport, Inc. (“Employer”) met its burden to prove Claimant committed misconduct because: (1) Claimant’s practice of telephoning Employer to inform Employer he was running late as soon as was practical was not negligent to such a degree as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, and Claimant did not willfully violate any policy of Employer; and (2) the facts found by the Commission do not support the award in that the Commission incorrectly concluded Claimant did not telephone Employer on all three occasions when he was running late.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties *134 have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 S.W.3d 133, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2011 WL 4038650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jansen-v-contract-transport-inc-moctapp-2011.