Peters v. Highley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peters v. Highley

676 S.W.2d 847

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 9, 1984

DocketNo. 13166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 676 S.W.2d 847 (Peters v. Highley) 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

Peters v. Highley, 676 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a motion asking the trial court to modify a dissolution decree by granting him custody of the parties’ minor child, a female aged 10. After hearing evidence and interviewing the child, the trial court denied the motion.

As the moving party appellant had the burden to prove facts establishing that the modification was necessary. Henderson v. Henderson, 622 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Mo.App.1981). He did not meet that burden.

We have carefully examined the record and have determined that the trial court’s findings and judgment are supported by substantial evidence and are not against the weight of the evidence and that no error of law appears. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a motion asking the trial court to modify a dissolution decree by granting him custody of the parties’ minor child, a female aged 10. After hearing evidence and interviewing the child, the trial court denied the motion.

As the moving party appellant had the burden to prove facts establishing that the modification was necessary. Henderson v. Henderson, 622 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Mo.App.1981). He did not meet that burden.

We have carefully examined the record and have determined that the trial court’s findings and judgment are supported by substantial evidence and are not against the weight of the evidence and that no error of law appears. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 S.W.2d 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-highley-moctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack