McKinney v. EXPERT TELEMARKETING, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

McKinney v. EXPERT TELEMARKETING, INC.

284 S.W.3d 776, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 794, 2009 WL 1587993

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 2009

DocketED 92245

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 S.W.3d 776 (McKinney v. EXPERT TELEMARKETING, 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

McKinney v. EXPERT TELEMARKETING, INC., 284 S.W.3d 776, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 794, 2009 WL 1587993 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwane McKinney appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal’s denial of waiting week credit and unemployment benefits. McKinney had an exchange with his manager one day at work, after which the manager told McKinney to go home and call in the morning. The Commission found that McKinney and the manager told completely different versions of the story, but each ended with McKinney never returning to work. The Commission concluded that McKinney voluntarily left his employment without good cause and therefore was ineligible for benefits. On appeal, McKinney argues the Commission’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwane McKinney appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal’s denial of waiting week credit and unemployment benefits. McKinney had an exchange with his manager one day at work, after which the manager told McKinney to go home and call in the morning. The Commission found that McKinney and the manager told completely different versions of the story, but each ended with McKinney never returning to work. The Commission concluded that McKinney voluntarily left his employment without good cause and therefore was ineligible for benefits. On appeal, McKinney argues the Commission’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W.3d 776, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 794, 2009 WL 1587993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-expert-telemarketing-inc-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack