Howe v. Howe

Missouri Court of Appeals

Howe v. Howe

173 S.W.3d 661, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1513, 2005 WL 2649451

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketED 85805

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 S.W.3d 661 (Howe v. Howe) 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

Howe v. Howe, 173 S.W.3d 661, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1513, 2005 WL 2649451 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*662 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Howe and Mary Howe appeal from a judgment of the trial court adjudicating ownership and partition of a certain piece of property originally owned by Walter Howe, their son, and Victoria Howe, their former daughter-in-law. Walter Howe cross-appeals from the judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err, and its judgment is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

*662 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Howe and Mary Howe appeal from a judgment of the trial court adjudicating ownership and partition of a certain piece of property originally owned by Walter Howe, their son, and Victoria Howe, their former daughter-in-law. Walter Howe cross-appeals from the judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err, and its judgment is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W.3d 661, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1513, 2005 WL 2649451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howe-v-howe-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack