Hedrick v. Chapman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hedrick v. Chapman

291 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1261, 2009 WL 2871117

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 8, 2009·No. ED 92396·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Debra DiMeo (“Paternal Grandmother”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting Children’s Division’s (“the Division”) motion to dismiss her Third Party Motion to Modify as to Child Custody, Visitation and Support (“Third Party Motion”). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The 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.

Debra DiMeo (“Paternal Grandmother”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting Children’s Division’s (“the Division”) motion to dismiss her Third Party Motion to Modify as to Child Custody, Visitation and Support (“Third Party Motion”). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Hedrick v. Chapman, 291 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1261, 2009 WL 2871117 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

291 S.W.3d 860 (Hedrick v. Chapman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related