Miller v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

Miller v. Miller

339 S.W.3d 519, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 383

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

DocketED 94837, ED 94899

StatusPublished

This text of 339 S.W.3d 519 (Miller v. Miller) 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

Miller v. Miller, 339 S.W.3d 519, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 383 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Walter Miller, Jr. and Denise Kerley (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the *520 trial court’s judgment that found in favor of Margaret Miller and John Miller in Appellants’ trust-contest action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence, Eckelkamp v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 298 S.W.3d 546, 550 (Mo.App. E.D.2009); Goede v. Aerojet General Corp., 143 S.W.3d 14, 23 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). 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) (2010).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Walter Miller, Jr. and Denise Kerley (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the *520 trial court’s judgment that found in favor of Margaret Miller and John Miller in Appellants’ trust-contest action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence, Eckelkamp v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 298 S.W.3d 546, 550 (Mo.App. E.D.2009); Goede v. Aerojet General Corp., 143 S.W.3d 14, 23 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). 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) (2010).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.W.3d 519, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack