Stevens v. Hoffman Foods, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stevens v. Hoffman Foods, Inc.

99 S.W.3d 44, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 192, 2003 WL 346956

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81297

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.W.3d 44 (Stevens v. Hoffman Foods, 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

Stevens v. Hoffman Foods, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 44, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 192, 2003 WL 346956 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Hoffman Foods, Inc. (Employer), and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (Insurer) appeal the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) dismissal of Employer and Insurer’s application for review. Employer and Insurer contend the Commission acted in excess of its power in sustaining Robert Steven’s (Employee) motion to dismiss their timely filed application for review.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The case of Szydlowski v. Metro Moving & Storage Co., 924 S.W.2d 325 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996) is directly on point. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Employee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and for sanctions taken with the case is denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Hoffman Foods, Inc. (Employer), and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (Insurer) appeal the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) dismissal of Employer and Insurer’s application for review. Employer and Insurer contend the Commission acted in excess of its power in sustaining Robert Steven’s (Employee) motion to dismiss their timely filed application for review.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The case of Szydlowski v. Metro Moving & Storage Co., 924 S.W.2d 325 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996) is directly on point. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Employee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and for sanctions taken with the case is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.W.3d 44, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 192, 2003 WL 346956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-hoffman-foods-inc-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack