Weinzerl v. Weinzerl

Missouri Court of Appeals

Weinzerl v. Weinzerl

282 S.W.3d 883, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2009 WL 1287786

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 2009

DocketED 91627

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 S.W.3d 883 (Weinzerl v. Weinzerl) 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

Weinzerl v. Weinzerl, 282 S.W.3d 883, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2009 WL 1287786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Donald Weinzerl appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his petition for declaration of emancipation and termination of child support.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. 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. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment 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.

Keith Donald Weinzerl appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his petition for declaration of emancipation and termination of child support.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. 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. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 S.W.3d 883, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2009 WL 1287786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinzerl-v-weinzerl-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack