Long v. Long

Missouri Court of Appeals

Long v. Long

105 S.W.3d 858, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 754, 2003 WL 21154173

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81469

StatusPublished

This text of 105 S.W.3d 858 (Long v. Long) 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

Long v. Long, 105 S.W.3d 858, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 754, 2003 WL 21154173 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mary Ellen Long (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s Modification Judgment reducing Terrence R. Long’s (Husband) maintenance obligation.

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. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Holt v. Holt, 633 S.W.2d 171, 173 (Mo.App. E.D.1982). No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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.

Mary Ellen Long (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s Modification Judgment reducing Terrence R. Long’s (Husband) maintenance obligation.

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. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Holt v. Holt, 633 S.W.2d 171, 173 (Mo.App. E.D.1982). No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.W.3d 858, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 754, 2003 WL 21154173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-long-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack