McLain v. McLain

Missouri Court of Appeals

McLain v. McLain

91 S.W.3d 705, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2367, 2002 WL 31752231

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

DocketED 80740

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 S.W.3d 705 (McLain v. McLain) 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

McLain v. McLain, 91 S.W.3d 705, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2367, 2002 WL 31752231 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peggy Ressel McLain (Mother) appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to Rickie Lee McLain (Father). Mother claims the trial court erred in awarding sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children to Father.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 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. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peggy Ressel McLain (Mother) appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to Rickie Lee McLain (Father). Mother claims the trial court erred in awarding sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children to Father.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 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. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.3d 705, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2367, 2002 WL 31752231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclain-v-mclain-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack