Call v. Perkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the moving parent is not required to present evidence regarding every factor
• finding a nunc pro tunc judgment was not authorized under Rule 74.06(a), “[h]owever laudatory the court’s purpose”
• finding a nunc pro tunc judgment was not authorized under Rule 74.06(a), “[hjowever laudatory the court’s purpose”
• “The trial court did not reject Mother’s arguments because they were filed too late; it rejected them because they were unpersuasive.”
• “the only true function of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct some error or inadvertence in the recording of that which was actually done, but which, because of that error or omission was not properly recorded”
• “All of the factors listed in section 452.375 (and others

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).