C.A.H. v. J.A.T.

Missouri Court of Appeals

C.A.H. v. J.A.T.

477 S.W.3d 700, 2015 WL 8231056

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 2016

DocketED 102396

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 700 (C.A.H. v. J.A.T.) 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

C.A.H. v. J.A.T., 477 S.W.3d 700, 2015 WL 8231056 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

J.A.T. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Judgment and Full Order of Protection. We have reviewed Appellant’s brief¹ and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not misstate or misapply the law. K.M.D. v. Alosi, 324 S.W.3d 477, 479 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). Further, we find the court did not lack the authority to award or abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. Id. 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.

J.A.T. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Judgment and Full Order of Protection. We have reviewed Appellant’s brief¹ and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not misstate or misapply the law. K.M.D. v. Alosi, 324 S.W.3d 477, 479 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). Further, we find the court did not lack the authority to award or abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. Id. 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)

477 S.W.3d 700, 2015 WL 8231056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cah-v-jat-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack