In the Interest of D.D.C. v. Carter

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of D.D.C. v. Carter

360 S.W.3d 929, 2012 WL 788072, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 303

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 13, 2012

DocketWD 73881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 360 S.W.3d 929 (In the Interest of D.D.C. v. Carter) 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

In the Interest of D.D.C. v. Carter, 360 S.W.3d 929, 2012 WL 788072, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 303 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

David Whipple appeals a judgment entered by the Family Court Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court, awarding him attorneys’ fees of $7,000 in a contested termination of parental rights and adoption case, in which he represented the *930 natural father. The circuit court denied Whipple’s request for additional fees and expenses. He now appeals, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying substantial portions of his fee request. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

David Whipple appeals a judgment entered by the Family Court Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court, awarding him attorneys’ fees of $7,000 in a contested termination of parental rights and adoption case, in which he represented the *930 natural father. The circuit court denied Whipple’s request for additional fees and expenses. He now appeals, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying substantial portions of his fee request. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 S.W.3d 929, 2012 WL 788072, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ddc-v-carter-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack