BLATTEL v. Hayes

Missouri Court of Appeals

BLATTEL v. Hayes

283 S.W.3d 828, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 748, 2009 WL 1523276

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 2, 2009

DocketED 91308

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 S.W.3d 828 (BLATTEL v. Hayes) 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

BLATTEL v. Hayes, 283 S.W.3d 828, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 748, 2009 WL 1523276 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Blattel (Father) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Diana *829 Hayes’ Motion to Modify Child Support and increasing Father’s child support obligation, and denying Father’s Motion to Emancipate the Child. 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, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. In re Marriage of Copeland, 850 S.W.2d 422, 424-25 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum 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.

Patrick Blattel (Father) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Diana *829 Hayes’ Motion to Modify Child Support and increasing Father’s child support obligation, and denying Father’s Motion to Emancipate the Child. 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, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. In re Marriage of Copeland, 850 S.W.2d 422, 424-25 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum 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)

283 S.W.3d 828, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 748, 2009 WL 1523276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blattel-v-hayes-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack