Missey v. Schnucks Markets, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Missey v. Schnucks Markets, Inc.

185 S.W.3d 760, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 277, 2006 WL 538733

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86599

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.W.3d 760 (Missey v. Schnucks Markets, 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

Missey v. Schnucks Markets, Inc., 185 S.W.3d 760, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 277, 2006 WL 538733 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Missey (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her claim for unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties [761]*761and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission did not err in finding that Claimant left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employment. Quik ’N Tasty Foods, Inc. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 17 S.W.3d 620, 625 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Missey (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her claim for unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties [761]*761and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission did not err in finding that Claimant left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employment. Quik ’N Tasty Foods, Inc. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 17 S.W.3d 620, 625 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.W.3d 760, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 277, 2006 WL 538733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missey-v-schnucks-markets-inc-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack