Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Amazon.com, Inc., and Division of Employment Security Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
amazoncom-inc-and-division-of-employment-security
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. 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.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Amazon.com, Inc., and Division of Employment Security

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Cheryl Dickerman quit her job at Amazon due to COVID-19 concerns and was later disqualified from unemployment benefits and notified of an overpayment. Her letter appealing the overpayment was treated by the Appeals Tribunal as an untimely appeal of the disqualification, and the Commission dismissed her subsequent application for review as untimely. The appellate court reversed, finding that while there was sufficient evidence Dickerman received notice of the dismissal, the Appeals Tribunal erred in misinterpreting her letter as an appeal of the disqualification rather than the overpayment decision. The case was remanded for a decision on the merits of the overpayment appeal.