O'Neal v. Ariel Premium Supply, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

O'Neal v. Ariel Premium Supply, Inc.

351 S.W.3d 235, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1380, 2011 WL 5187293

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2011

DocketED 96320

StatusPublished

This text of 351 S.W.3d 235 (O'Neal v. Ariel Premium Supply, 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

O'Neal v. Ariel Premium Supply, Inc., 351 S.W.3d 235, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1380, 2011 WL 5187293 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence O’Neal (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) disqualifying Claimant from unemployment benefits. Claimant asserts the Commission erred in finding he was dis *236 charged for misconduct connected with his work for violating a policy of Employer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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.

Lawrence O’Neal (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) disqualifying Claimant from unemployment benefits. Claimant asserts the Commission erred in finding he was dis *236 charged for misconduct connected with his work for violating a policy of Employer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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)

351 S.W.3d 235, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1380, 2011 WL 5187293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-ariel-premium-supply-inc-moctapp-2011.