Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Piccione v. Piccione, 824 So. 2d 427.

26 citing documents.

Hillary Noel-Potier v. Richard Potier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Crystal Marie Bennett Fontenot v. Jeremy Keith Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Anthony Phillip Girouard, Jr. v. Sue Taylor Girouard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Jeremy Scott Chapman v. Kayla Nicole Chapman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Leslie Renee Boagni Elsbury v. Ernest Ray Elsbury, IV La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Melvin Anthony Tassin v. Constance Mikita Tassin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Tassin v. Tassin 161 So. 3d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
LaRocca v. LaRocca 164 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 5/22/02) , , for example, the Third Circuit held that “good cause must constitute, ...
Samuel Henderson Shuffler v. Sarah Carlton Shuffler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Wendy Hicks Hagan v. Robert Gene Hagan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Hagan v. Hagan 70 So. 3d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Duffel v. Duffel 54 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/22/02) , *678 ; 431; (La.App.
Susan Elizabeth Jackson Piccione v. Richard James Piccione La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Piccione v. Piccione 20 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Blane Guillory v. Rachel Cefalu Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Guillory v. Guillory 7 So. 3d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Laura Leonard Leblanc v. Mitchel Brett Leblanc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 5/22/02), as authority for his position.
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 953 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 5/22/02) , , as authority for his position.
Ackel v. Ackel 951 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
App 3rd Cir 5/22/02), , in support of his position.
Patrick Murphy v. Susan Lynn Murphy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Murphy v. Murphy 894 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Shirley Gauthier v. Newty Paul Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Gauthier v. Gauthier 886 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Marion Elizabeth Berry Robichaux v. Floyd John Robichaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 5/22/02), Mr. Robichaux contends that the trial court is required to consider both the needs of the child and the parents’ ability to pay in calculating the support obligation.
Robichaux v. Robichaux 879 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 5/22/02) , , Mr. Robichaux contends that the trial court is required to consider both the needs of the child and the parents' ability to pay in calculating the support obligation.
Roan v. Roan 870 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
App. 3 Cir. 5/22/02), , the third circuit affirmed a trial court's ruling that denied Ms. Piccione's request to extend the award of interim child support until the time the youngest child reaches school age.