Southwell v. Southwell

271 S.W.3d 74, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1602, 2008 WL 5456244
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 25, 2008·No. ED 91064·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew J. Southwell appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Constance Southwell. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Ulreich v. Kreutz, 876 S.W.2d 726, 728 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

Southwell v. Southwell, 271 S.W.3d 74, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1602, 2008 WL 5456244 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

271 S.W.3d 74 (Southwell v. Southwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Flowers v. State
271 S.W.3d 74 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)