Spencer v. Macy's Credit Operations, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Spencer v. Macy's Credit Operations, Inc.

515 S.W.3d 839, 2017 WL 1323911, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 283

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104159

StatusPublished

This text of 515 S.W.3d 839 (Spencer v. Macy's Credit Operations, 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

Spencer v. Macy's Credit Operations, Inc., 515 S.W.3d 839, 2017 WL 1323911, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 283 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Barbara Spencer appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) denying her claim for unemployment benefits after her termination from Mary’s Credit Operations, Inc. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Barbara Spencer appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) denying her claim for unemployment benefits after her termination from Mary’s Credit Operations, Inc. 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)

515 S.W.3d 839, 2017 WL 1323911, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-macys-credit-operations-inc-moctapp-2017.