In re K.M.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re K.M.

356 S.W.3d 263, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1417

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 25, 2011·No. No. ED 96134·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

P.M. appeals from the circuit court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment/Order (judgment) denying her Motion to Intervene. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the circuit court’s 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

P.M. appeals from the circuit court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment/Order (judgment) denying her Motion to Intervene. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the circuit court’s 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).

In re K.M., 356 S.W.3d 263, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1417 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

356 S.W.3d 263 (In re K.M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related