Ravenscraft v. MARION COUNTY AND DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

280 S.W.3d 790, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 457, 2009 WL 987423
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 14, 2009·No. ED 91803·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jill Ravenscraft (hereinafter, “Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”), denying her unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant raises two issues on appeal, claiming the Commission erred in applying the law to the facts.

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

Ravenscraft v. MARION COUNTY AND DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, 280 S.W.3d 790, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 457, 2009 WL 987423 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

280 S.W.3d 790 (Ravenscraft v. MARION COUNTY AND DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lockwood v. Director of Revenue
280 S.W.3d 790 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)