Rhea v. Johnston

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rhea v. Johnston

256 S.W.3d 614, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2008 WL 2586231

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 2008

DocketED 90146

StatusPublished

This text of 256 S.W.3d 614 (Rhea v. Johnston) 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

Rhea v. Johnston, 256 S.W.3d 614, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2008 WL 2586231 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

. PER CURIAM.

Jason M. Rhea (Father) appeals from the trial court’s Judgment and Order, which modified a previous judgment and order and with respect to the payment of child support and medical expenses for his son, D.R. (Son).

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. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the *615 judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the 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

ORDER

. PER CURIAM.

Jason M. Rhea (Father) appeals from the trial court’s Judgment and Order, which modified a previous judgment and order and with respect to the payment of child support and medical expenses for his son, D.R. (Son).

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. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the *615 judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.W.3d 614, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2008 WL 2586231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhea-v-johnston-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack