Fugate v. Fugate

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fugate v. Fugate

254 S.W.3d 181, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 480, 2008 WL 927580

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 2008

DocketED 89702

StatusPublished

This text of 254 S.W.3d 181 (Fugate v. Fugate) 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

Fugate v. Fugate, 254 S.W.3d 181, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 480, 2008 WL 927580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laura Fugate (hereinafter, ‘Wife”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving her marriage to Michael Fugate (hereinafter, “Husband”). Wife raises two points on appeal, challenging the propriety of the trial court’s actions with respect to an after-trial motion and the denial of Wife’s motion seeking to recuse the trial judge. Wife does not challenge the merits of the underlying judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal and find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment 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.

Laura Fugate (hereinafter, ‘Wife”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving her marriage to Michael Fugate (hereinafter, “Husband”). Wife raises two points on appeal, challenging the propriety of the trial court’s actions with respect to an after-trial motion and the denial of Wife’s motion seeking to recuse the trial judge. Wife does not challenge the merits of the underlying judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal and find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 181, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 480, 2008 WL 927580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fugate-v-fugate-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack