Arif v. SHKUR

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arif v. SHKUR

318 S.W.3d 233, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2010 WL 2483282

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 22, 2010

DocketWD 71289

StatusPublished

This text of 318 S.W.3d 233 (Arif v. SHKUR) 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

Arif v. SHKUR, 318 S.W.3d 233, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2010 WL 2483282 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Amanj Arif appeals from the trial court’s judgment of dissolution of marriage and contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $854 per month in child support. After a thorough review of the record, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the award, it was not against the clear weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Amanj Arif appeals from the trial court’s judgment of dissolution of marriage and contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $854 per month in child support. After a thorough review of the record, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the award, it was not against the clear weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

318 S.W.3d 233, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2010 WL 2483282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arif-v-shkur-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack