Kingsmore v. Staub

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kingsmore v. Staub

445 S.W.3d 680, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2014 WL 5139419

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 14, 2014·No. No. ED 100842·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Staub appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the request of Ashley Kingsmore to relocate with their minor child (Child). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Ratteree v. Will, 258 S.W.3d 864, 867-68 (Mo.App.E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Staub appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the request of Ashley Kingsmore to relocate with their minor child (Child). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Ratteree v. Will, 258 S.W.3d 864, 867-68 (Mo.App.E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 84.16(b).

Kingsmore v. Staub, 445 S.W.3d 680, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2014 WL 5139419 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

445 S.W.3d 680 (Kingsmore v. Staub) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related