Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Jill Lanel Welker, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Samuel Lynn Welker, Respondent/Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: family-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jill-lanel-welker-petitionerrespondent-v-samuel-lynn-welker-respondentapp-12724
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12724
Related Practice Areas:
- Family Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/family?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=family&ott_archive_query=Jill+Lanel+Welker%2C+Petitioner%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Samuel+Lynn+Welker%2C+Respondent%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+family-law%3B+text%3A+dissolution&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: family; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: family-law, text: dissolution, text: custody, text: child support)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Jill Lanel Welker, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Samuel Lynn Welker, Respondent/Appellant.
Case Number:  71733
Handdown Date:  12/30/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, Hon. William L. Syler
Counsel for Appellant:  Joanna C. Fryer
Counsel for Respondent:  John  P. Heisserer
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Crahan, C.J., Russell, J., and Dowd, J.
Opinion:
ORDER
Father appeals the trial court's judgment of modification of his dissolution with respect to the transfer of custody of 
his minor children and the modification of child support.  He further appeals the denial of his motions for contempt and for 
correction of a docket entry nunc pro tunc.  We find 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).
Separate Opinion:
None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.