Page v. Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc.
996 S.W.2d 678, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 690
Opinion
ORDER
Dorothy Page appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s order dismissing her application for review for failing to comply with 8 CSR 20-3.030(3)(A) in that she did not sufficiently state reasons why the Administrative Law Judge’s findings and conclusions were in [679]*679error. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Page v. Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc., 996 S.W.2d 678, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 690 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
996 S.W.2d 678 (Page v. Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Page v. Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc.
3 S.W.3d 385 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1999)