Oliver v. DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES

Missouri Court of Appeals

Oliver v. DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES

212 S.W.3d 164, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1834, 2006 WL 3486865

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

DocketWD 66507

StatusPublished

This text of 212 S.W.3d 164 (Oliver v. DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES) 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

Oliver v. DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES, 212 S.W.3d 164, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1834, 2006 WL 3486865 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Oliver appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission wherein the Commission determined that he failed to timely initiate the administrative appellate process for review of the decision of the Division of Employment Security, which denied him benefits, as required by section 288.070.4 RSMo. The Division determined that, as an employee of the State of Missouri, he had been discharged from employment for failing to pay State of Missouri taxes, a condition of employment.

The decision of the Commission declaring that Mr. Oliver failed to timely file his application for review is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Oliver appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission wherein the Commission determined that he failed to timely initiate the administrative appellate process for review of the decision of the Division of Employment Security, which denied him benefits, as required by section 288.070.4 RSMo. The Division determined that, as an employee of the State of Missouri, he had been discharged from employment for failing to pay State of Missouri taxes, a condition of employment.

The decision of the Commission declaring that Mr. Oliver failed to timely file his application for review is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 S.W.3d 164, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1834, 2006 WL 3486865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-division-of-youth-services-moctapp-2006.