Kingsmore v. Staub

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kingsmore v. Staub

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 2014

DocketNo. ED 100842

StatusPublished

This text of 445 S.W.3d 680 (Kingsmore v. Staub) 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 S.W.3d 680, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2014 WL 5139419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsmore-v-staub-moctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack