From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Labor Indus. Relations Com'n

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Mar 18, 1986
706 S.W.2d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

holding that merely alleging the Division of Employment Security made a decision unsupported by competent and substantial evidence in the body of the petition, but omitting any reference to the division in the caption or the prayer was not substantial compliance with the legal requirement that the division be made a party

Summary of this case from Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.

Opinion

No. 50111.

March 18, 1986.

Tracy A. Hunsaker, Kirkwood, for appellant.

Alan J. Downs, Jefferson City, for respondent.


MEMORANDUM


The Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission appeals from the dismissal of its petition for review of a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Dismissal was based upon the failure of appellant to join as a party the Division of Employment Security as mandated by the then operative statute, Sec. 288.210 RSMo 1978.

Our review establishes that appellant made no substantial compliance with the statute and the petition for review was properly dismissed. Duzer v. Industrial Commission, 402 S.W.2d 616 (Mo.App. 1966) [1, 2]; Schiff v. Labor and Industrial Commission, 684 S.W.2d 924 (Mo.App. 1985). Merely alleging that the Division entered a decision "unsupported by competent and substantial evidence" in the body of the petition for review, but omitting any reference to the Division in the caption or the prayer is not sufficient to make the Division a party.

In view of the amendment to the law after dismissal of this case a full opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and SNYDER, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Labor Indus. Relations Com'n

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Mar 18, 1986
706 S.W.2d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

holding that merely alleging the Division of Employment Security made a decision unsupported by competent and substantial evidence in the body of the petition, but omitting any reference to the division in the caption or the prayer was not substantial compliance with the legal requirement that the division be made a party

Summary of this case from Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.

In State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 706 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo.App. 1986), the court held that merely alleging in the body of the petition that the Division had entered a decision unsupported by competent and substantial evidence was not sufficient to name the Division as a party.

Summary of this case from Pharmacology Research Corp. v. Missouri Division of Employment Security
Case details for

State v. Labor Indus. Relations Com'n

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Mar 18, 1986

Citations

706 S.W.2d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission v. McGuire

These decisions have been consistently followed. Pharmacology Research Corp. v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 755 S.W.2d…

Pharmacology Research Corp. v. Missouri Division of Employment Security

The court concluded that the Director was not a party. In State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transportation…