Walsh v. Walsh

8 Citing cases

  1. Kroeger-Eberhart v. Eberhart

    254 S.W.3d 38 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 25 times
    Holding trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in excluding out-of-court statements alleging abuse of two children who were not the subject of the proceedings as irrelevant, and given that holding, finding no need to further consider the trial court’s exclusions of evidence based on claims of hearsay and privilege

    The standard of review in a dissolution action is the same as for any court-tried case. Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006). We will affirm the judgment unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.

  2. In re A.S.W

    226 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    Therefore, that section is not applicable to this case. Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo.App. 2006) (the statute in effect at the time a petition commencing an action is filed is the applicable statute). The trial court's reliance on In re T.M.E., 169 S.W.3d 581 (Mo.App. 2005), is misplaced.

  3. Karstens v. Evans

    688 S.W.3d 782 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    This issue is rendered moot because we reverse and remand the trial court’s judgment based on Evans’ first three points. See Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 158 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (finding appellant’s remaining points on appeal were moot because those points addressed alternative arguments). Point IV is moot.

  4. Harris v. Harris

    No. ED110533 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    All references to section 452.375 are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (Cum. Supp. 2019) and all references to section 452.310 are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (2016). See T.J.E. v. M.R.M., 592 S.W.3d 399, 401 n.2 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (citing Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)). Case law relied upon in this opinion discusses substantially similar versions of these statutes.

  5. Parke v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

    613 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    In Parke, we acknowledged a civil-criminal dichotomy, but our reasoning emphasized the criminal penalties in the statute under review were "not adequate to address the civil interests of individuals harmed by a purchaser's failure to comply with the salvage statutes."

    We use the statute in effect at the time the petition was filed. SeeWalsh v. Walsh , 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). When Parke commenced this action, the salvage vehicle definition was found in Section 301.010(53), RSMo. (cum supp. 2018).

  6. T.J.E. v. M.R.M.

    592 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references to section 452.375 are to RSMo 2016 (effective from August 28, 2016 to August 27, 2018), because this is the version of the statute in effect at the time Father’s motion to modify was filed in January 2018. SeeWalsh v. Walsh , 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (citing and referring to a former, substantially similar version of section 452.375 and holding that the version of statute in effect at the time a petition commencing an action regarding child custody is the applicable statute). To avoid unnecessary repetition and parentheticals, we also note at this juncture that case law discussing section 452.375 which is set out below in Section III. of this opinion cites and refers to former, substantially similar versions of the statute.

  7. Splitt v. Splitt

    320 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)

    Loan Splitt appeals from the trial court's Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (judgment) dissolving her marriage to Kenneth Splitt. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment is not against the weight of the evidence, Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in identifying and dividing the parties' marital property. Pruitt v. Pruitt, 94 S.W.3d 429, 433-34 (Mo.App. E.D. 2003).

  8. Arnold v. Arnold

    243 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)

    Further, we find that the Dissolution is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo.App.E.D.2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential value.