Murphy v. Murphy

Missouri Court of Appeals

Murphy v. Murphy

72 S.W.3d 621, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2002 WL 655410

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79520

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.W.3d 621 (Murphy v. Murphy) 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

Murphy v. Murphy, 72 S.W.3d 621, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2002 WL 655410 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James V. Murphy (Husband) appeals from a trial court Judgment Modifying Decree of Dissolution (Judgment). Husband alleges trial court error in not terminating his maintenance obligation to Mavis Wylene Murphy (Wife) because of a decrease in his income and an increase in Wife’s income. 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, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). 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.

James V. Murphy (Husband) appeals from a trial court Judgment Modifying Decree of Dissolution (Judgment). Husband alleges trial court error in not terminating his maintenance obligation to Mavis Wylene Murphy (Wife) because of a decrease in his income and an increase in Wife’s income. 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, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). 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)

72 S.W.3d 621, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2002 WL 655410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack