Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Stacey L. Boyd 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
stacey-l-boyd
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Stacey L. Boyd

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 26, 2024

Stacey L. Boyd, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

Appellant

Stacey L. Boyd appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decisions, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's dismissal of her unemployment overpayment appeals as untimely. The Commission found Boyd did not file her appeals within 30 days of the Division of Employment Security mailing the overpayment determinations. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission's decisions were not supported by sufficient competent evidence because the record lacked proof that the Division actually mailed the overpayment determinations via email on the stated date. The case was remanded for the Appeals Tribunal to decide the appeals on the merits.