Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 S.W.3d 621

Murphy v. Murphy

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 23, 2002

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2002-04-23

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2013

13 state decisions

Relies on Hartzell v. Hartzell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-04-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2James V. Murphy (Husband) appeals from a trial court Judgment Modifying Decree of Dissolution (Judgment). Husband alleges trial court error in not terminating his maintenance obligation to Mavis Wylene Murphy (Wife) because of a decrease in his income and an increase in Wife’s income. 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, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). 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 only. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

/72/sw3d/621 · .json · Public domain