Neal Lovlace v. Timothy Kevin Copley

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[c]ourts need not make findings on stipulated or undisputed facts, unless conflicting inferences can be drawn from undisputed facts”
• holding that “evidence that the parties’ relationship has degenerated to the point that an existing visitation arrangement has proven unworkable in a significant way is sufficient to establish a material change”
• holding that a request was waived not because it was addressed first by reply brief, but because the reply brief contained no argument or citation to the record regarding the issue
• providing that the phrase “including but not limited to” indicates a non-exhaustive list
• observing that “[o]ne remedy appellate courts typically apply when a trial court’s factual findings fail to satisfy the Rule 52.01 requirement is to remand the case to the trial court with directions to issue sufficient findings and conclusions”
• observing that “[o]ne remedy appellate courts typically apply when a trial court’s factual findings fail to satisfy the Rule 52.01 requirement is to remand the case to the trial court with directions to issue sufficient findings and conclusions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).