Johnson v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. Division of Employment Security

254 S.W.3d 904, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 779

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 2008

DocketED 90383

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 S.W.3d 904 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. Division of Employment Security, 254 S.W.3d 904, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Juanita Johnson (“Claimant”) appeals the denial of her application for unemployment benefits. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) found that pursuant to Section 288.040, RSMo Cum.Supp.2007, Claimant was not able and available for work because Claimant’s election to work only four days a week placed an undue restriction upon her availability for work.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties 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.

Juanita Johnson (“Claimant”) appeals the denial of her application for unemployment benefits. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) found that pursuant to Section 288.040, RSMo Cum.Supp.2007, Claimant was not able and available for work because Claimant’s election to work only four days a week placed an undue restriction upon her availability for work.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties 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)

254 S.W.3d 904, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack