Nikonowicz v. Difani

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nikonowicz v. Difani

381 S.W.3d 402, 2012 WL 4883248, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 2012

DocketNo. ED 97721

StatusPublished

This text of 381 S.W.3d 402 (Nikonowicz v. Difani) 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

Nikonowicz v. Difani, 381 S.W.3d 402, 2012 WL 4883248, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Joseph Difani appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying joint legal custody of his minor children to primary legal custody in favor of Rita Elizabeth Nikonowicz. 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, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Margolis v. Steinberg, 242 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Joseph Difani appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying joint legal custody of his minor children to primary legal custody in favor of Rita Elizabeth Nikonowicz. 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, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Margolis v. Steinberg, 242 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 S.W.3d 402, 2012 WL 4883248, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nikonowicz-v-difani-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack