RYUN v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

RYUN v. Division of Employment Security

348 S.W.3d 864, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1262, 2011 WL 4444081

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 27, 2011

DocketWD 73510

StatusPublished

This text of 348 S.W.3d 864 (RYUN 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

RYUN v. Division of Employment Security, 348 S.W.3d 864, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1262, 2011 WL 4444081 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Crystal Ryun filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits arising from the termination of her employment with Bay Insulation of Kansas City, Inc. A deputy in the Division of Employment Security determined that Ryun was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Ryun appealed to the Division’s Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal when she failed to appear for a scheduled telephone hearing. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision. Ryun now appeals to this Court. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Crystal Ryun filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits arising from the termination of her employment with Bay Insulation of Kansas City, Inc. A deputy in the Division of Employment Security determined that Ryun was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Ryun appealed to the Division’s Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal when she failed to appear for a scheduled telephone hearing. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision. Ryun now appeals to this Court. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 S.W.3d 864, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1262, 2011 WL 4444081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryun-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2011.