Kohlfeld v. W. Schiller & Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kohlfeld v. W. Schiller & Co.

210 S.W.3d 454, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2007 WL 3444

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 2, 2007

DocketNo. ED 87987

StatusPublished

This text of 210 S.W.3d 454 (Kohlfeld v. W. Schiller & Co.) 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

Kohlfeld v. W. Schiller & Co., 210 S.W.3d 454, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2007 WL 3444 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christina Kohlfeld (“Claimant”) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (“Commission”) decision that Claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Claimant contends the Commission’s finding of “misconduct connected with work” was not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Willcut v. Division of Employment Sec., 193 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, 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.

Christina Kohlfeld (“Claimant”) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (“Commission”) decision that Claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Claimant contends the Commission’s finding of “misconduct connected with work” was not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Willcut v. Division of Employment Sec., 193 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, 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)

210 S.W.3d 454, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2007 WL 3444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohlfeld-v-w-schiller-co-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack