Litvinov v. Beaird

Missouri Court of Appeals

Litvinov v. Beaird

238 S.W.3d 708, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1397

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2007

DocketNo. 28099

StatusPublished

This text of 238 S.W.3d 708 (Litvinov v. Beaird) 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

Litvinov v. Beaird, 238 S.W.3d 708, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1397 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge.

Alesya Litvinov appeals a judgment dismissing her petition for declaration of paternity and the cross-petition of Konstan-tin Litvinov for declaration of paternity. This appeal is directed to the same judgment as the appeal in No. 28095. The opinion in No. 28095 has been filed contemporaneous herewith. That opinion is reported at In re D.A.B., 238 S.W.3d 705 (Mo.App.S.D., 2007).

The action that resulted in the judgment that is the subject of this appeal was brought pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (the UPA) as enacted in Missouri, §§ 210.817-210.852, RSMo 2000. The issue in this appeal is the same as in No. 28095. The facts and rationale that are set forth in the opinion filed in No. 28095 are determinative. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

BATES and SCOTT, JJ., concur.

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

JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge.

Alesya Litvinov appeals a judgment dismissing her petition for declaration of paternity and the cross-petition of Konstan-tin Litvinov for declaration of paternity. This appeal is directed to the same judgment as the appeal in No. 28095. The opinion in No. 28095 has been filed contemporaneous herewith. That opinion is reported at In re D.A.B., 238 S.W.3d 705 (Mo.App.S.D., 2007).

The action that resulted in the judgment that is the subject of this appeal was brought pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (the UPA) as enacted in Missouri, §§ 210.817-210.852, RSMo 2000. The issue in this appeal is the same as in No. 28095. The facts and rationale that are set forth in the opinion filed in No. 28095 are determinative. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

BATES and SCOTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W.3d 708, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litvinov-v-beaird-moctapp-2007.