Carroll v. Carroll

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carroll v. Carroll

540 S.W.3d 444

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105393

StatusPublished

This text of 540 S.W.3d 444 (Carroll v. Carroll) 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

Carroll v. Carroll, 540 S.W.3d 444 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Justin G. Carroll ("Father") appeals from the Amended Judgment of Modification ("Judgment") awarding Julia E. Carroll n/k/a Julia E. Hibberd ("Mother") and Father joint legal and physical custody of the parties' minor children, awarding Mother the designation of residential parent, and denying Father's request to relocate the parties' minor children. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Justin G. Carroll ("Father") appeals from the Amended Judgment of Modification ("Judgment") awarding Julia E. Carroll n/k/a Julia E. Hibberd ("Mother") and Father joint legal and physical custody of the parties' minor children, awarding Mother the designation of residential parent, and denying Father's request to relocate the parties' minor children. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 S.W.3d 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-carroll-moctapp-2018.