Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Boyett v. Boyett, 448 So. 2d 819.

32 citing documents.

Diamand v. Davis 94 So. 3d 1027 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Further, David argues that the trial court misapplied the “substantial risk of harm” test
Clark v. Kleidon 682 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
prudential language was of course substantially different from the statutory language adopted in 1982, and at least one court accordingly held that the 1982 enactment had changed the law, giving the courts “more freedom or latitude to pursue the goal of insuring that the best interest of the child is served in resolving custody disputes between |4parent and nonparent litigants.” (La.App.
In Re Custody of Landry 662 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Williams v. Bernstine 626 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Humphrey v. Humphrey 614 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
2d Cir.1986); *844 (La.App.
Schloegel v. Schloegel 584 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Pittman v. Jones 559 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Article 146 was amended in 1982, and as amended, which required a finding that the parent is unable or unfit to provide a home for the child or a finding that the parent has forfeited their paramount parental rights before awarding custody to a nonparent, (La.App.
Lewis v. Taylor 554 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
2d Cir.1986), writ denied, (La.App.
Merritt v. Merritt 550 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Johnson v. Sullivan 545 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Walker v. Washington 540 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Hughes v. McKenzie 539 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
App. 2d Cir.1985), writs denied, and (La.App.
Love v. Love 536 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
3 Cir.1984) ] supra; Boyett v. Boyett (La.App.
Bolding v. Bolding 532 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
McManus v. McManus 528 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Pounders v. Rouse 528 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Thomas v. Thomas 519 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
2d Cir.1986), writ den., (La.App.
Tyler v. Tyler 513 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Parker v. Payton 511 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Odom v. Culverhouse 505 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Matter of Fox 504 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
art. 146 and the jurisprudence, (La.App.
Gordy v. Langner 502 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
3 Cir.1986); Berzins v. Betts, supra; (La.App.
In Re Bourg 501 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Lions v. Lions 488 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Boykin v. Corless 488 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Gras v. Gras 489 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Rachal v. Manausa 483 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Moore v. Moore 479 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Batiste v. Guillory 479 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Carroll v. Carroll 476 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Recknagel v. Roberts 465 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Johnson on Behalf of Johnson v. Earls 464 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985