Ewing v. State, 400 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Ewing v. State, 400 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Frank J. Laenen, and Jennifer R. Laenen v. Beth A. Laenen (moctapp, 2014-09-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frank J. Laenen, and Jennifer R. Laenen v. Beth A. Laenen
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“Interpretation of a dissolution judgment and a QDRO is an issue of law that we review de novo.” Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 793 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) (quoting Kuba v. Kuba, 400 S.W.3d 869, 875 (Mo.App.W.D.2013)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Deborah L Roberts v. Michael L Roberts
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Kuba v. Kuba, 400 S.W.3d 869, 873-75 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roberts v. Roberts
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Kuba v. Kuba, 400 S.W.3d 869, 873-75 (Mo.App.
Michael EWING, Movant/Appellant
v.
STATE of Missouri
No. ED 98917.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 11, 2013.
400 S.W.3d 869
Timothy Forneris, St. Louis, MO, for appellant., Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Andrew C. Hooper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Cohen, Mooney, Odenwald.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Michael Ewing, appeals the motion court’s order denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion would have no prec-edential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).