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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 8, 2016·No. ED 102396·Published

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).

Footnotes

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).

Footnotes

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

Pincite

477 S.W.3d 700 (C.A.H. v. J.A.T.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related