State v. Isom

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Isom

179 S.W.3d 314, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 2005 WL 3159738

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 2005

DocketED 85493

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.W.3d 314 (State v. Isom) 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

State v. Isom, 179 S.W.3d 314, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 2005 WL 3159738 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Isom appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. *315 Louis granting the State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division’s, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and dismissing Mr. Isom’s Motion to Set Aside Administrative Decision/Order, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Motion for Reimbursement of Sums Paid to the Division of Child Support Enforcement. In his appeal, Mr. Isom contends that the trial court erred in its determination that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. We affirm the award 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.

Michael Isom appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. *315 Louis granting the State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division’s, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and dismissing Mr. Isom’s Motion to Set Aside Administrative Decision/Order, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Motion for Reimbursement of Sums Paid to the Division of Child Support Enforcement. In his appeal, Mr. Isom contends that the trial court erred in its determination that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 314, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 2005 WL 3159738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-isom-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack