Peebles v. BAKERS PRIDE, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peebles v. BAKERS PRIDE, INC.

227 S.W.3d 540, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2006 WL 4594961

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2007

DocketED 88965

StatusPublished

This text of 227 S.W.3d 540 (Peebles v. BAKERS PRIDE, 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

Peebles v. BAKERS PRIDE, INC., 227 S.W.3d 540, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2006 WL 4594961 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bakers Pride, Inc. (hereinafter, “Employer”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”), finding Johnny Peebles was discharged but not for misconduct connected with his work and awarding him unemployment compensation benefits. Employer raises two issues on appeal, claiming the Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and it failed to make adequate findings of fact.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Bakers Pride, Inc. (hereinafter, “Employer”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”), finding Johnny Peebles was discharged but not for misconduct connected with his work and awarding him unemployment compensation benefits. Employer raises two issues on appeal, claiming the Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and it failed to make adequate findings of fact.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 S.W.3d 540, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2006 WL 4594961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peebles-v-bakers-pride-inc-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack