Parr v. Rottler Pest Control Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Parr v. Rottler Pest Control Co.

505 S.W.3d 342, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1022, 2016 WL 6080412

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103923

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 342 (Parr v. Rottler Pest Control Co.) 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

Parr v. Rottler Pest Control Co., 505 S.W.3d 342, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1022, 2016 WL 6080412 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Stephen J. Parr appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (“Commission”) determination that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed misconduct in connection with his employment at Rott-ler Pest Control ' Company (“Rottler”). Parr contends that the Commission erred because it improperly placed the burden on him to prove that he did not commit misconduct. Finding no error of law and that the Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their [343]*343information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

Stephen J. Parr appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (“Commission”) determination that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed misconduct in connection with his employment at Rott-ler Pest Control ' Company (“Rottler”). Parr contends that the Commission erred because it improperly placed the burden on him to prove that he did not commit misconduct. Finding no error of law and that the Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their [343]*343information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.3d 342, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1022, 2016 WL 6080412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parr-v-rottler-pest-control-co-moctapp-2016.