Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Schaefer Autobody Centers, Inc., Employer/Respondent, 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
schaefer-autobody-centers-inc-employer/respondent-and-division-of-employment-security
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Schaefer Autobody Centers, Inc., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Amber Hubbard appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's dismissal of her unemployment benefits appeal for failing to participate in a telephone hearing. The appellate court dismissed Hubbard's appeal, finding her brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory briefing requirements, thus preserving no issues for review. The court also noted, in the alternative, that even if the brief were compliant, her misunderstanding of the clear hearing instructions did not constitute good cause for missing the hearing.