C.M. v. Phillips

Missouri Court of Appeals

C.M. v. Phillips

327 S.W.3d 5, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1395, 2010 WL 4075728

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

DocketED 94280

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 327 S.W.3d 5 (C.M. v. Phillips) 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.M. v. Phillips, 327 S.W.3d 5, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1395, 2010 WL 4075728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Todd S. Phillips (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment granting a full order of protection in favor of CM. (hereinafter, “Petitioner”) against him pursuant to Section 455.020 RSMo (2000). In his sole point on appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in granting a full order of protection because the trial court lacked a preponderance of evidence to support its ruling that Appellant abused Petitioner.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The trial court’s grant of a full order of protection is supported by substantial evidence. Barazi v. Eckoldt, 180 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Todd S. Phillips (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment granting a full order of protection in favor of CM. (hereinafter, “Petitioner”) against him pursuant to Section 455.020 RSMo (2000). In his sole point on appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in granting a full order of protection because the trial court lacked a preponderance of evidence to support its ruling that Appellant abused Petitioner.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The trial court’s grant of a full order of protection is supported by substantial evidence. Barazi v. Eckoldt, 180 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 S.W.3d 5, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1395, 2010 WL 4075728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cm-v-phillips-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack