Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Seaman v. Seaman, 54 So. 3d 756.

19 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Dept. of Children & Family Services Versus Denzel Ridley La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
App. 3 Cir. 12/15/10), State ex rel.
Ryan Bunch Versus Cassandra Rabius La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
App. 3 Cir. 12/15/10), (“[W]e find no logical reason for postponing an immediate appeal of a judgment of custody simply because the parties may have outstanding issues pertaining to support or visitation matters.”).
Joseph J. Bazile, Jr. and Barbara B. Mire Versus Charles E. Zetzmann and Anne Zetzmann La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
App. 3 Cir. 12/15/10), State ex rel.
Fidelity Bank v. the Succession of Geraldine O. Dowden La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
App. 3 Cir. 12/15/10), ); see also State ex rel.
State in the Interest of T.J.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3 Cir. 12/15/10), (citation omitted), this court noted: While this court is not unmindful of the possible disadvantages facing a non-attorney attempting self-representation .
Robert Caillier v. Strictly Star Touring La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Caillier v. Strictly Stars Touring 195 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State in the Interest of B.D.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/15/10), pointed out that: “[N]either the trial court nor the appellate court has the authority to extend the delays for seeking an appeal since the timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional issue.” This court dismissed an appeal in a case in which the state, as appellee, did not oppose an extension of time within
State ex rel. B.D.L. 193 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/15/10), , pointed out that: “[N]either the trial court nor the appellate court has the authority to extend the delays for seeking an appeal since the timeliness ■ of an appeal is a jurisdictional issue.” This court dismissed an appeal in a case in which the state, as appellee, did not oppose an extension of time within w
Jose Raful Martinez v. George Robert Rivet, Trustee of Rivet Family Trust La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/15/10), this court considered a similar issue in the context of a judgment that modified custody and visitation.
Martinez v. Rivet 190 So. 3d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/15/10) , , this court considered a similar issue in the context of a judgment that modified custody and visitation.
Sheila Minor v. Freddy Mango La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/15/10), “[N]either the trial court nor the appellate court has the authority to extend the delays for seeking an appeal since the timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional issue.
Sidney Stagg v. Cequel III Communications, I, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 12/15/10), (citation omitted), this court noted: While this court is not unmindful of the possible disadvantages facing a non-attorney attempting self-representation .
Dew v. Blankenship 150 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 12/15/10), ; State ex rel.
David Luxemburg v. Skyline Elevators La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
In Re: Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 12/15/10), wherein the trial court had entered a partial judgment modifying custody to the parties’ minor children, but expressly left other matters in this domestic suit for decision at a later date.
In re Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust 121 So. 3d 1289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 12/15/10) , , wherein the trial court had entered a partial judgment modifying custody to the parties’ minor children, but expressly left other matters in this domestic suit for decision at a later date.
State v. MSH 62 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 12/15/10) , ; State in the Interest of E.A., 02-996 (La.App.
State ex rel. S.J.H. v. M.S.H. 62 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 12/15/10) , ; State in the Interest of E.A., 02-996 (La.App.