Nelson-King v. King

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nelson-King v. King

210 S.W.3d 284, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1559, 2006 WL 3007049

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 24, 2006

DocketNo. WD 65803

StatusPublished

This text of 210 S.W.3d 284 (Nelson-King v. King) 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

Nelson-King v. King, 210 S.W.3d 284, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1559, 2006 WL 3007049 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This dissolution action is now before this comet on appeal for a second time. In King v. King, 66 S.W.3d 28, 40 (Mo.App. W.D. banc 2001), this court, sitting en banc, affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgement of the Circuit Court of Clay County, dissolving the marriage of Terri L. Nelson King (“Terri”) and Cordell J. King (“Cordell”) and distributing certain property, and remanded the cause to the trial court with specific directions. On remand, after receiving further evidence, the trial court made additional findings in a new judgment.

After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This dissolution action is now before this comet on appeal for a second time. In King v. King, 66 S.W.3d 28, 40 (Mo.App. W.D. banc 2001), this court, sitting en banc, affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgement of the Circuit Court of Clay County, dissolving the marriage of Terri L. Nelson King (“Terri”) and Cordell J. King (“Cordell”) and distributing certain property, and remanded the cause to the trial court with specific directions. On remand, after receiving further evidence, the trial court made additional findings in a new judgment.

After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 S.W.3d 284, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1559, 2006 WL 3007049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-king-v-king-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack