Propulsion Controls Co. v. Burge

Missouri Court of Appeals

Propulsion Controls Co. v. Burge

508 S.W.3d 188, 2017 WL 326041, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 43

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 2017

DocketWD 79368

StatusPublished

This text of 508 S.W.3d 188 (Propulsion Controls Co. v. Burge) 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

Propulsion Controls Co. v. Burge, 508 S.W.3d 188, 2017 WL 326041, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Redina Burge applied for unemployment benefits after her employment with Propulsion Control Company, LLC was terminated in July ,2015. Propulsion protested the claim on the basis that Burge had been discharged for misconduct. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found that Burge’s termination was not for misconduct connected with work, and that she was therefore eligible for unemployment benefits. Propulsion appeals, arguing that the Commission’s decision is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Redina Burge applied for unemployment benefits after her employment with Propulsion Control Company, LLC was terminated in July ,2015. Propulsion protested the claim on the basis that Burge had been discharged for misconduct. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found that Burge’s termination was not for misconduct connected with work, and that she was therefore eligible for unemployment benefits. Propulsion appeals, arguing that the Commission’s decision is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 S.W.3d 188, 2017 WL 326041, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/propulsion-controls-co-v-burge-moctapp-2017.