DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State Ex Rel. Martin v. Garza, 46 So. 2d 760.

26 citing documents.

  • State in Interest of AC 643 So. 2d 719 La. 1994
  • In Re Adoption of BGS 556 So. 2d 545 La. 1990
  • LaPointe v. Menard 412 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    v. Garza, , ; State ex rel.
  • Powell v. Barsavage 399 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Ingargiola v. Clesi 396 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Cawthorne v. Williams 313 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
  • Wilson v. Wilson 307 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
  • Wren v. Wren 301 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • State in Interest of Taylor 296 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
  • Wood v. Beard 290 So. 2d 675 La. 1974
  • Lindsay v. Finch 240 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • State ex rel. Tusa v. Tusa 221 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    we said: ‘In such cases the sole question for the court’s consideration is whether the parent by his or her conduct has forfeited his or her parental right to the child, for it is the well settled jurisprudence of this state that the courts are not authorized to interfere with a parent’s authority *66
  • Shilling v. Doyle 218 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    that by his conduct a parent can forfeit his parental right to the custody of his child.” See State ex rel.
  • Bellett v. Brinson 206 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • State ex rel. Copell v. Marusak 205 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Jaubert v. Miller 205 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (1950): “In such cases the sole question for the court’s consideration is whether the parent by his or her conduct forfeited his or her parental right to the child, for it is the well settled jurisprudence of this state that the courts are not authorized to interfere with a parent’s authority over his *
  • State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney 178 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Acomb v. Billeiter 175 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
  • State Ex Rel. Paul v. Department of Public Welfare 170 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    State v. Miller, supra; State v. Hatcher, supra.
  • Brown v. Ellison 162 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • State ex rel. Rothrock v. Webber 155 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    as well as in several other decisions.
  • State ex rel. Hampton v. McElroy 141 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    the Court decreed that a parent by his conduct can forfeit his parental right to the custody of his child.
  • State ex rel. Hebert v. Knight 135 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    wherein the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Fournet as the organ of the court, observed: “In such cases the sole question for the court’s consideration is whether the parent by his or her conduct has forfeited his or her parental right to the child, for it is the well settled jurisprudence of th
  • State Ex Rel. Paul v. Peniston 105 So. 2d 228 La. 1958
    that by his conduct a parent can forfeit his parental right to the custody of his child.” Unquestionably, both the Pauls and the Penistons enjoy excellent reputations in their respective circles of acquaintance, and each is fit and able to properly care for Shirley Rae.
  • State Ex Rel. Lombardo v. Miller 94 So. 2d 888 La. 1957
  • Liner v. Liner 64 So. 2d 4 La. 1953