OTT LAW

Casiner Withrow, appellant, v. Shining Example Floor Maintenance Co., Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

Decision date: January 27, 2009ED92272

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

CASINER WITHROW, ) No. ED92272 ) Claimant/Appellant, ) ) vs. ) Appeal from the Labor and ) Industrial Relations Commission SHINING EXAMPLE FLOOR ) MAINTENANCE CO., INC., and DIVISION ) OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ) ) Respondents. ) FILED: January 27, 2009

Casiner Withrow (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) decision regarding unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) determined that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged due to misconduct connected with his work. She appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal. Claimant then sought review by the Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's decision. Claimant has now filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal, asserting it is untimely and thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

2 The notice of appeal to this court from the Commission's decision in unemployment matters is due within twenty days of the decision becoming final. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000. The Commission's decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on October 31,

  1. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due on or before Monday, December 1, 2008.

Sections 288.200.2, 288.210; 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant mailed the notice of appeal to the Commission in an envelope postmarked December 2, 2008. Under section 288.240, the notice of appeal is deemed filed on that date. Brandes v. Correctional Medical Services , 216 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. App. E.D.2007). Even so, it is untimely under section 288.210. Chapter 288 governing unemployment cases fails to provide for the filing of a late notice of appeal. McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech , 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D.2000). As a result, an untimely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and we must dismiss it. Alfred v. Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur Operating, LLC , 257 S.W.3d 185, 186 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

__________________________________ NANNETTE A. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE

PATRICIA L. COHEN, J. and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J. concur.

Related Opinions

Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501

affirmed
family-lawmajority5,654 words

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.

family-lawper_curiam4,882 words

In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485

affirmed

Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.

family-lawmajority8,056 words

In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.

family-lawper_curiam3,296 words

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.

family-lawmajority3,425 words