Capps v. Capps

Missouri Court of Appeals

Capps v. Capps

703 S.W.2d 53, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3677

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 3, 1985

DocketNo. 49428

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 703 S.W.2d 53 (Capps v. Capps) 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

Capps v. Capps, 703 S.W.2d 53, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3677 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting a full order of protection pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, §§ 455.010, 455.085 RSMo.1978. In the order the court also awarded primary custody of a minor child to the petitioner, with reasonable visitation and temporary custody rights to the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay $3,500.00 monthly for child support and maintenance. Attorney’s fees in the sum of $3,000.00 were awarded to petitioner to be paid by respondent.

[54]*54The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. There was no error in the application or declaration of the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1-3] (Mo. banc 1976).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting a full order of protection pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, §§ 455.010, 455.085 RSMo.1978. In the order the court also awarded primary custody of a minor child to the petitioner, with reasonable visitation and temporary custody rights to the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay $3,500.00 monthly for child support and maintenance. Attorney’s fees in the sum of $3,000.00 were awarded to petitioner to be paid by respondent.

[54]*54The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. There was no error in the application or declaration of the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1-3] (Mo. banc 1976).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 S.W.2d 53, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capps-v-capps-moctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack