RUSH-BANKS v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

RUSH-BANKS v. Division of Employment Security

354 S.W.3d 246, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1502, 2011 WL 5362124

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 2011

DocketED 96265

StatusPublished

This text of 354 S.W.3d 246 (RUSH-BANKS v. Division of Employment Security) 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

RUSH-BANKS v. Division of Employment Security, 354 S.W.3d 246, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1502, 2011 WL 5362124 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Claimant, Antonia Rush-Banks, appeals from the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security finding claimant disqualified from unemployment benefits. The Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum *247 opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission 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.

Claimant, Antonia Rush-Banks, appeals from the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security finding claimant disqualified from unemployment benefits. The Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum *247 opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.W.3d 246, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1502, 2011 WL 5362124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rush-banks-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2011.