Calman v. Calman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Calman v. Calman

856 S.W.2d 341, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 845, 1993 WL 189574

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Calman v. Calman. Read the opinion of the Court — 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1365 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 8, 1993·No. No. 62271·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals from a judgment entered on a dissolution decree in St. Louis County Circuit Court. The Order awarded certain property to the wife which the hus[342]*342band claims was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The evidence at trial was disputed and we accept as true the evidence and permissible inferences favorable to the prevailing party. Hughes v. Hughes, 761 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Mo.App.1988). We find no abuse of discretion. No prece-dential value would be served by a written opinion. Therefore, we file this Order in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals from a judgment entered on a dissolution decree in St. Louis County Circuit Court. The Order awarded certain property to the wife which the hus[342]*342band claims was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The evidence at trial was disputed and we accept as true the evidence and permissible inferences favorable to the prevailing party. Hughes v. Hughes, 761 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Mo.App.1988). We find no abuse of discretion. No prece-dential value would be served by a written opinion. Therefore, we file this Order in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

Calman v. Calman, 856 S.W.2d 341, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 845, 1993 WL 189574 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

856 S.W.2d 341 (Calman v. Calman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related