White v. Spectaguard Acquisition, L.L.C.

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. Spectaguard Acquisition, L.L.C.

233 S.W.3d 779, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1303, 2007 WL 2769516

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 88983

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 779 (White v. Spectaguard Acquisition, L.L.C.) 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

White v. Spectaguard Acquisition, L.L.C., 233 S.W.3d 779, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1303, 2007 WL 2769516 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Arthur White (“Employee”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Relations Commission (the “Commission”), upholding the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security, finding that White was discharged from Spectaguard Acquisition, L.L.C. (the “Employer”) due to misconduct and therefore, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 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 affirming 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.

Appellant Arthur White (“Employee”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Relations Commission (the “Commission”), upholding the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security, finding that White was discharged from Spectaguard Acquisition, L.L.C. (the “Employer”) due to misconduct and therefore, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 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 affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 779, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1303, 2007 WL 2769516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-spectaguard-acquisition-llc-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack