Case ID: sw3d_216/html/0234-01.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

In re MARRIAGE of Barbara M. HOBEROCK and Gregory E. Hoberock. Barbara M. Hoberock, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Gregory E. Hoberock, Respondent/Appellant.
    No. ED 87537.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    March 6, 2007.
    Jeffery T. McPherson, Cynthia A. Petra-cek, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    Cary J. Mogerman, Mary E. Niemira, Joseph J. Kodner, Zerman & Mogerman LLC, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
    Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband, Gregory E. Hoberock, appeals from a second amended judgment entered in a dissolution case after remand. The 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 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).