Langley v. Sullivan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Langley v. Sullivan

285 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2009 WL 1763247

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 2009

DocketED 91722

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 S.W.3d 834 (Langley v. Sullivan) 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

Langley v. Sullivan, 285 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2009 WL 1763247 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricky L. Langley, Jr. (hereinafter, “Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying a judgment of dissolution entered by the trial court, which had awarded him sole legal and physical custody of his two minor children subject to Salina M. Langley’s (hereinafter, “Mother”) visitation. Father argues the trial court erred in modifying custody of the minor children in favor of Mother because the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence.

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.

Ricky L. Langley, Jr. (hereinafter, “Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying a judgment of dissolution entered by the trial court, which had awarded him sole legal and physical custody of his two minor children subject to Salina M. Langley’s (hereinafter, “Mother”) visitation. Father argues the trial court erred in modifying custody of the minor children in favor of Mother because the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence.

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)

285 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2009 WL 1763247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langley-v-sullivan-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack