Rose v. Newlywed Spice Craft Division

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rose v. Newlywed Spice Craft Division

91 S.W.3d 703, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2371, 2002 WL 31752204

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

DocketED 81078

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.W.3d 703 (Rose v. Newlywed Spice Craft Division) 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

Rose v. Newlywed Spice Craft Division, 91 S.W.3d 703, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2371, 2002 WL 31752204 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Rose (employee) appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying him compensation for an injury he alleges he experienced while working at Newlywed Spice Craft Division, Newlyweds Foods (employer).

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value or jurisprudential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the *704 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.

Timothy Rose (employee) appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying him compensation for an injury he alleges he experienced while working at Newlywed Spice Craft Division, Newlyweds Foods (employer).

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value or jurisprudential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the *704 reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.3d 703, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2371, 2002 WL 31752204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-newlywed-spice-craft-division-moctapp-2002.