JEHLE v. Tubbs

Missouri Court of Appeals

JEHLE v. Tubbs

229 S.W.3d 106, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2007 WL 1120390

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2007

DocketED 88521

StatusPublished

This text of 229 S.W.3d 106 (JEHLE v. Tubbs) 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

JEHLE v. Tubbs, 229 S.W.3d 106, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2007 WL 1120390 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sharon Lee Jehle (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying a judgment of dissolution previously entered by the trial court, which had awarded her sole legal and physical custody of her two minor children. Mother argues the trial court erred in awarding Larry Eugene Tubbs (Father) unsupervised visitation of the minor children.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming 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.

Sharon Lee Jehle (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying a judgment of dissolution previously entered by the trial court, which had awarded her sole legal and physical custody of her two minor children. Mother argues the trial court erred in awarding Larry Eugene Tubbs (Father) unsupervised visitation of the minor children.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.3d 106, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2007 WL 1120390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jehle-v-tubbs-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack