Murphy v. Murphy

Missouri Court of Appeals

Murphy v. Murphy

303 S.W.3d 633, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 211, 2010 WL 623644

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

DocketED 92622

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 S.W.3d 633 (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, 303 S.W.3d 633, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 211, 2010 WL 623644 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Murphy appeals from the trial court’s Judgment of Modification, which required him to pay child support to Deborah Murphy for the care of the parties’ minor children. 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 and does not erroneously declare the law, Hern v. Hern., 173 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Mo.App. E.D.2005), and is not an abuse of discretion, Garner v. Garner, 973 S.W.2d 513, 514 (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) (2009).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Murphy appeals from the trial court’s Judgment of Modification, which required him to pay child support to Deborah Murphy for the care of the parties’ minor children. 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 and does not erroneously declare the law, Hern v. Hern., 173 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Mo.App. E.D.2005), and is not an abuse of discretion, Garner v. Garner, 973 S.W.2d 513, 514 (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) (2009).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 633, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 211, 2010 WL 623644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack