Queensen v. Jerry Bickel Race Cars, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Queensen v. Jerry Bickel Race Cars, Inc.

571 S.W.3d 245

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 2019

DocketNo. ED 107096

StatusPublished

This text of 571 S.W.3d 245 (Queensen v. Jerry Bickel Race Cars, 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

Queensen v. Jerry Bickel Race Cars, Inc., 571 S.W.3d 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Jerry Bickel Race Cars, Inc. ("Employer") appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") finding Scott Queensen was not disqualified from unemployment benefits after his termination from Employer because of misconduct connected with work. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The evidence in support of the Commission's order was not insufficient. No error of law appears. 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 Commission's order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Jerry Bickel Race Cars, Inc. ("Employer") appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") finding Scott Queensen was not disqualified from unemployment benefits after his termination from Employer because of misconduct connected with work. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The evidence in support of the Commission's order was not insufficient. No error of law appears. 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 Commission's order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 S.W.3d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queensen-v-jerry-bickel-race-cars-inc-moctapp-2019.