Sigman v. Rodden

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sigman v. Rodden

341 S.W.3d 127, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 605, 2011 WL 1532010

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2011

DocketED 94974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 341 S.W.3d 127 (Sigman v. Rodden) 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

Sigman v. Rodden, 341 S.W.3d 127, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 605, 2011 WL 1532010 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephanie Lynn Sigman Rodden (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying her request to relocate out of state with her minor child (Child) born of Mother’s relationship with Timothy Eugene Sigman. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Ratteree v. Will, 258 S.W.3d 864, 867-68 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use *128 only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephanie Lynn Sigman Rodden (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying her request to relocate out of state with her minor child (Child) born of Mother’s relationship with Timothy Eugene Sigman. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Ratteree v. Will, 258 S.W.3d 864, 867-68 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use *128 only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 127, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 605, 2011 WL 1532010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sigman-v-rodden-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack