Poth v. Poth

Missouri Court of Appeals

Poth v. Poth

199 S.W.3d 792, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 952, 2006 WL 1737568

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 27, 2006·No. No. ED 87563·Published

Opinion

[793] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Margaret C. Poth and Daniel S. Poth (“Petitioners”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting Gregory E. Poth’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioners motion to “Determine Amounts Due from [Gregory E. Poth].”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[793] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Margaret C. Poth and Daniel S. Poth (“Petitioners”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting Gregory E. Poth’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioners motion to “Determine Amounts Due from [Gregory E. Poth].”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Poth v. Poth, 199 S.W.3d 792, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 952, 2006 WL 1737568 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

199 S.W.3d 792 (Poth v. Poth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.