Guffey v. Guffey

Missouri Court of Appeals

Guffey v. Guffey

266 S.W.3d 341, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1422, 2008 WL 4630721

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketED 89898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 S.W.3d 341 (Guffey v. Guffey) 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

Guffey v. Guffey, 266 S.W.3d 341, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1422, 2008 WL 4630721 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Guffey (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (Judgment) awarding Brandy Guffey (Wife), inter alia, sole physical custody of the parties’ minor children and $30,750 in attorney’s fees. 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 *342 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 purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Guffey (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (Judgment) awarding Brandy Guffey (Wife), inter alia, sole physical custody of the parties’ minor children and $30,750 in attorney’s fees. 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 *342 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 purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 341, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1422, 2008 WL 4630721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guffey-v-guffey-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack