Jones v. CENTRAL MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jones v. CENTRAL MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS

233 S.W.3d 807, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1360, 2007 WL 2827655

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

DocketWD 67854

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 807 (Jones v. CENTRAL MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS) 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

Jones v. CENTRAL MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, 233 S.W.3d 807, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1360, 2007 WL 2827655 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bonita Jones appeals from a decision issued by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding that she had *808 been discharged from her employment with Central Maintenance Systems, Inc. for misconduct connected to her work and concluding that she was, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. 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 procured by fraud, and that the facts found by the Commission supported the award. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written 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.

Bonita Jones appeals from a decision issued by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding that she had *808 been discharged from her employment with Central Maintenance Systems, Inc. for misconduct connected to her work and concluding that she was, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. 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 procured by fraud, and that the facts found by the Commission supported the award. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written 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)

233 S.W.3d 807, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1360, 2007 WL 2827655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-central-maintenance-systems-moctapp-2007.