Family LawChild CustodyAppealcustody modificationappealaffirmedmemorandum decisionRule 84.16(b)
Facts
The case involves a trial court judgment modifying custody of the parties' minor children. Jamold Little challenged that judgment on appeal. He raised four points before the appellate court. The opinion does not describe the underlying custody facts or the substance of the four points.
Issue
Whether the trial court's judgment modifying custody of the parties' minor children should be reversed on the four points raised by Jamold Little on appeal.
Rule
When the appellate court determines that a published opinion would have no precedential value, it may affirm the judgment by memorandum under Rule 84.16(b).
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In St. Louis, a trial court modified parenting time and legal decision-making for two children after post-dissolution litigation between Nora Benton and Elias Reed. Elias appeals on three grounds, and the appellate panel concludes that a published opinion would not add any precedential value.
What is the most appropriate disposition under the rule reflected in the majority opinion?
Explanation. The majority opinion establishes only that when the appellate court determines a published opinion would have no precedential value, it may affirm by memorandum under Rule 84.16(b). The case does not require a published opinion, does not require reversal, and does not authorize dismissal on that basis alone. (Derived from Little v. Little (n.d.).)