Case ID: sw3d_189/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ray VINSON, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Deanna VINSON, Respondent/Respondent.
    Nos. ED 86117, ED 86125.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    April 18, 2006.
    Craig G. Kallen III, Hais, Hais & Ral-len, P.C., Edward L. Dowd, Jr., James F. Bennett, Kenneth L. Marshall, Bryan Cave L.L.P., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Michael A. Gross, Joseph F. Yeckel, Law Offices of Michael A. Gross, Allan H. Zerman, James P. Carmody, Zerman & Mogerman LLC, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and ROY L. RICHTER, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner husband appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his petition for a full order of protection under the Adult Abuse Act. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 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.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).