Robinson v. Robinson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Robinson v. Robinson

283 S.W.3d 305, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2009 WL 1383693

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 2009

DocketED 91687

StatusPublished

This text of 283 S.W.3d 305 (Robinson v. Robinson) 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

Robinson v. Robinson, 283 S.W.3d 305, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2009 WL 1383693 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lewis Robinson (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment on multiple motions relating to a September 6, 2002 judgment of dissolution, including Jacqueline Robinson’s (“Mother”) amended motion for contempt, Father’s motion for contempt, his motion to modify, and his motion to declare Jalisa Robinson emancipated.

*306 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lewis Robinson (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment on multiple motions relating to a September 6, 2002 judgment of dissolution, including Jacqueline Robinson’s (“Mother”) amended motion for contempt, Father’s motion for contempt, his motion to modify, and his motion to declare Jalisa Robinson emancipated.

*306 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 S.W.3d 305, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2009 WL 1383693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-robinson-moctapp-2009.