Marks v. Marks

Missouri Court of Appeals

Marks v. Marks

238 S.W.3d 682, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1254, 2007 WL 2593768

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 2007

DocketED 89222

StatusPublished

This text of 238 S.W.3d 682 (Marks v. Marks) 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

Marks v. Marks, 238 S.W.3d 682, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1254, 2007 WL 2593768 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason Marks appeals from the trial court’s judgment giving him and Felicia Marks (Mother) joint legal custody of their child, yet giving Mother final decision-making authority should the parties not be able to agree on a decision. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). 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 Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason Marks appeals from the trial court’s judgment giving him and Felicia Marks (Mother) joint legal custody of their child, yet giving Mother final decision-making authority should the parties not be able to agree on a decision. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). 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 Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W.3d 682, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1254, 2007 WL 2593768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-marks-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack