Mitchell v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mitchell v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

254 S.W.3d 84, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 268

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

DocketED 89391

StatusPublished

This text of 254 S.W.3d 84 (Mitchell v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) 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

Mitchell v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 254 S.W.3d 84, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Emmett Mitchell (“Mitchell”) appeals an order of the St. Louis County Circuit *85 Court affirming the St. Louis Civil Service Commission’s decision affirming his termination from his employment at the St. Louis County Justice Center. We find no error and affirm.

In his first point, Mitchell claims that the Commission erred in affirming his dismissal because the “decision was made upon unlawful procedures and without a fair trial” for three reasons. First, Mitchell argues that that he was not notified of the Commission’s meeting during which the Commission decided his case in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, he argues that he was prejudiced when the Assistant County Counselor “mistakenly advised” the Commission of its standard of review. Third, Mitchell argues that it was error for the Commission to adopt verbatim the appointing authority’s proposed findings. In his second point, Mitchell claims that the Commission erred in affirming the termination because the findings are not supported by competent and substantial evidence. In his third point, Mitchell argues that the Commission erred in upholding his termination because he was suspended without pay prior to giving him notice of the cause of his suspension and a timely pre-disciplinary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Emmett Mitchell (“Mitchell”) appeals an order of the St. Louis County Circuit *85 Court affirming the St. Louis Civil Service Commission’s decision affirming his termination from his employment at the St. Louis County Justice Center. We find no error and affirm.

In his first point, Mitchell claims that the Commission erred in affirming his dismissal because the “decision was made upon unlawful procedures and without a fair trial” for three reasons. First, Mitchell argues that that he was not notified of the Commission’s meeting during which the Commission decided his case in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, he argues that he was prejudiced when the Assistant County Counselor “mistakenly advised” the Commission of its standard of review. Third, Mitchell argues that it was error for the Commission to adopt verbatim the appointing authority’s proposed findings. In his second point, Mitchell claims that the Commission erred in affirming the termination because the findings are not supported by competent and substantial evidence. In his third point, Mitchell argues that the Commission erred in upholding his termination because he was suspended without pay prior to giving him notice of the cause of his suspension and a timely pre-disciplinary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 84, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-county-of-st-louis-civil-service-commission-moctapp-2008.