Peters v. Peters

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peters v. Peters

487 S.W.3d 492, 2016 WL 1578840, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 367

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103460

StatusPublished

This text of 487 S.W.3d 492 (Peters v. Peters) 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. Peters, 487 S.W.3d 492, 2016 WL 1578840, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Janet Peters appeals from the judgment denying her Amended Motion for Attorneys Fees on Appeal. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our - decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Janet Peters appeals from the judgment denying her Amended Motion for Attorneys Fees on Appeal. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our - decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 S.W.3d 492, 2016 WL 1578840, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-peters-moctapp-2016.