Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Schelldorf v. Schelldorf, 568 So. 2d 168.

15 citing documents.

Stephenson v. Stephenson 847 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Harper v. Harper 764 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Thomey v. Thomey 756 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State in Interest of Travers v. Travers 665 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Rodgers v. Rodgers 643 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Brazan v. Brazan 638 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
McConathy v. McConathy 632 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Hutto v. Kneipp 627 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Goodwin v. Goodwin 618 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Barto v. Barto 618 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
*616 JOINT CUSTODY PLAN The father contends that the trial court erred in deleting the “relocation of residence” restriction from the joint custody plan, (La.App.
Jenkins v. Jenkins 616 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Miguez v. Miguez 604 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
The purpose of alimony pendente lite is to provide support temporarily, pending litigation, (La.App.
Ridings v. Ridings 595 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
When an appellate court finds that the district court abused its discretion in the amount of its award for alimony (or child support), the appellate court is not free to award an amount it considers "appropriate" based on the evidence, but can only lower the amount to the highest point which is reasonably within the discretion of the court, (La.App.
LeFebvre v. LeFebvre 589 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Pulley v. Pulley 587 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991