M.A.F. v. D.R.F.

Missouri Court of Appeals

M.A.F. v. D.R.F.

478 S.W.3d 530, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1289, 2015 WL 8924171

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

DocketED 102222

StatusPublished

This text of 478 S.W.3d 530 (M.A.F. v. D.R.F.) 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

M.A.F. v. D.R.F., 478 S.W.3d 530, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1289, 2015 WL 8924171 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

D.R.F. appeals from the trial court’s judgment entering a one-year full order of protection entered against him and in favor of M.A.F. pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, sections 455.010, RSMo. (Cum. Supp. 2013), et seq. D.R.F. argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the full order of protection, because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of either stalking or harassment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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 Procedure 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

D.R.F. appeals from the trial court’s judgment entering a one-year full order of protection entered against him and in favor of M.A.F. pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, sections 455.010, RSMo. (Cum. Supp. 2013), et seq. D.R.F. argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the full order of protection, because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of either stalking or harassment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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 Procedure 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 S.W.3d 530, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1289, 2015 WL 8924171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maf-v-drf-moctapp-2015.