Hankins v. RELIANCE AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
KURT S. ODENWALD, Presiding Judge.
Introduction
Mary Hankins (Claimant) appeals pro se from a final order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission). The Commission’s order affirmed the Division of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal’s finding that Claimant is not eligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged by Reliance Automotive (Employer) for misconduct connected with work. Because Claimant’s brief fails to substantially comply with the appellate briefing requirements as provided in Rule 84.04, 1 we dismiss Claimant’s appeal.
Background
The record…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carlisle v. Rainbow Connection, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2009
- Thornton v. City of KirkwoodMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
3Cited by13 opinions
- Ireland v. Division of Employment SecurityMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
- Martin v. Division of Employment SecurityMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
- Al-Hawarey v. Al-HawareyMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
- Hubbard v. Schaefer Autobody Ctrs., Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2018
- Studt v. Fastenal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.