Traversey v. Modglin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Traversey v. Modglin

283 S.W.3d 302, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 646, 2009 WL 1383623

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 2009

DocketNo. ED 92072

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 S.W.3d 302 (Traversey v. Modglin) 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

Traversey v. Modglin, 283 S.W.3d 302, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 646, 2009 WL 1383623 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Modglin (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting P.T.’s (“Victim”) request for a full order of protection pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, Sections 455.005 through 455.090, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008 ¹. Appellant argues the trial court erred in granting a full order of protection because Victim did not present sufficient evidence at trial for the entry of the order.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

Michael Modglin (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting P.T.’s (“Victim”) request for a full order of protection pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, Sections 455.005 through 455.090, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008 ¹. Appellant argues the trial court erred in granting a full order of protection because Victim did not present sufficient evidence at trial for the entry of the order.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 S.W.3d 302, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 646, 2009 WL 1383623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traversey-v-modglin-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack