Bernhardt v. HOWE-BERNHARDT

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bernhardt v. HOWE-BERNHARDT

224 S.W.3d 50, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 355, 2007 WL 654238

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

DocketWD 65670

StatusPublished

This text of 224 S.W.3d 50 (Bernhardt v. HOWE-BERNHARDT) 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

Bernhardt v. HOWE-BERNHARDT, 224 S.W.3d 50, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 355, 2007 WL 654238 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mary Howe-Bernhardt appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage to Daniel Bernhardt. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, that no error of law appears, and that the court did not abuse its discretion. 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.

Mary Howe-Bernhardt appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage to Daniel Bernhardt. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, that no error of law appears, and that the court did not abuse its discretion. 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)

224 S.W.3d 50, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 355, 2007 WL 654238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernhardt-v-howe-bernhardt-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack