Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Elliott v. Elliott, 905 So. 2d 293.
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley
211 So. 3d 405
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
7/12/05), (providing that a party seeking a modification of a consent decree must prove that “there has been a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child since the original (or previous) custody decree was entered and that the proposed modification is in the best interest of the child” (Emphasis added
-
Allen v. Allen
184 So. 3d 718
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1st Cir.5/11/05), , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), ; State in the Interest of AR, 754 So.2d at 1077-78.
-
Kingston v. Kingston
80 So. 3d 774
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1 Cir. 5/11/05) , , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), .
-
Bonnecarrere v. Bonnecarrere
69 So. 3d 1225
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1st Cir.5/11/05), , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), .
-
Chauvin v. Chauvin
49 So. 3d 565
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1 Cir. 5/11/05), , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), ; State in the Interest of AR, 99-0813 at p. 8, 754 So.2d at 1077-78.
-
Elliott v. Elliott
49 So. 3d 407
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1st Cir.5/11/05), , writ denied, 2005-1547 (La.7/12/05), .
-
Bonnecarrere v. Bonnecarrere
37 So. 3d 1038
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1st Cir.5/11/05), , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), .
- Lawrence v. Julian 17 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
-
Friedman v. Friedman
11 So. 3d 1243
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
7/12/05), ; State in the Interest of A.R., 754 So.
-
Richard v. Richard
20 So. 3d 1061
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1st Cir.5/11/05), , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), .
-
Pinegar v. Harris
961 So. 2d 1246
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
1 Cir. 5/11/05) , -227 , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), .
-
Rao v. Rao
927 So. 2d 391
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
1st Cir.5/11/05), -29 , 2005 WL 1109457 , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.7/12/05), ; Peacock v. Peacock, 39,950, pp. 5-9 (La.App.
-
Schaeffer v. Schaeffer
914 So. 2d 631
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
1st Cir.05/11/05), , 2005 WL 1109457 , writ denied, 05-1547 (La.07/12/05), ; Caro v. Caro, 95-0173 (La.App.