Kelley v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kelley v. Moore

179 S.W.3d 906, 2005 WL 3527677

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 2005

DocketED 86028

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 906 (Kelley v. Moore) 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

Kelley v. Moore, 179 S.W.3d 906, 2005 WL 3527677 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barry David Moore (Father) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Motion to Modify the Judgment and Decree of Paternity and Motion for Family Access Order. We have reviewed Father’s brief 1 and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not manifestly erroneous, Abernathy v. Meier, 45 S.W.3d 917, 922 (Mo.App. E.D.2001), nor is it against the weight of the evidence. Miers v. Miers, 53 S.W.3d 592, 595 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We *907 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).

1

. Davida Linn (Scott) Kelley, the mother and respondent in this case, did not file a responsive brief.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barry David Moore (Father) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Motion to Modify the Judgment and Decree of Paternity and Motion for Family Access Order. We have reviewed Father’s brief 1 and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not manifestly erroneous, Abernathy v. Meier, 45 S.W.3d 917, 922 (Mo.App. E.D.2001), nor is it against the weight of the evidence. Miers v. Miers, 53 S.W.3d 592, 595 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We *907 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).

1

. Davida Linn (Scott) Kelley, the mother and respondent in this case, did not file a responsive brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 906, 2005 WL 3527677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-moore-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack