Apollo v. Apollo

Missouri Court of Appeals

Apollo v. Apollo

46 S.W.3d 664, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1010, 2001 WL 641124

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77814

StatusPublished

This text of 46 S.W.3d 664 (Apollo v. Apollo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apollo v. Apollo, 46 S.W.3d 664, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1010, 2001 WL 641124 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James N. Apollo appeals from a trial court judgment denying in part and granting in part his Motion to Modify Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The judgment also granted in part and denied in part Donna Apollo’s Counter-Motion to Modify. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James N. Apollo appeals from a trial court judgment denying in part and granting in part his Motion to Modify Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The judgment also granted in part and denied in part Donna Apollo’s Counter-Motion to Modify. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.W.3d 664, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1010, 2001 WL 641124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apollo-v-apollo-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack