DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kieffer v. Heriard, 58 So. 2d 836.

50 citing documents.

  • Schexnayder v. Schexnayder 371 So. 2d 769 La. 1979
    Monsour v. Monsour, supra ; Salley v. Salley, supra ; , (1952); (La.App.
  • Breaux v. Breaux 323 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Coston v. Coston, 196 La.
  • Jordan v. Jordan 294 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    20 , (1972); , (1952); Salley v. Salley, 238 La.
  • Hudson v. Hudson 295 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    (1952); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 215 La.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 268 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    Havens v. Havens, La.App., ; LaTour v. Fuselier, La.App., ; Morris v. Morris, La.App., ; , ; Coston v. Coston, 196 La.
  • Bertrand v. Bertrand 260 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    1 Cir. 1963); , (1952); Coston v. Coston, 196 La.
  • Weeks v. Weeks 258 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Strother v. Strother 248 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, *870 215 La.
  • Havens v. Havens 236 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • LaTour v. Fuselier 228 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    (1952), the Louisiana Supreme Court said, “It is also well established that the paramount consideration in determining to whom the custody of a child should be given after the divorce is the welfare and the best interest of the child, and under this rule this court has consistently awarded the cust
  • Murray v. Murray 220 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    and authorities therein cited.
  • Siggio v. Siggio 217 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, La.App.
  • Roller v. Roller 213 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Tiffee v. Tiffee 212 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Kieffer v. Heriard, supra, [ , ;] Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, supra; Bush v. Bush, supra; Stevens v. Stevens, La.App.
  • In Re State in Interest of Elliott 206 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
  • Lovell v. Lovell 205 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
    784 , (1953); , (1952); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 215 La.
  • Eiswirth v. Eiswirth 195 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    784 , ; , ; Port- *309 man v. Portman, La.App., ; Antony v. Antony, La.App., ; Morris v. Morris, La.App., ; Byrd v. Byrd, La.App., .
  • LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 194 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    252 , (1960); Guillory v. Guillory, supra; , (1952); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, supra.
  • Ransom v. Mitchell 193 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    We find in Kieffer v. Heriard (1952) , a discussion of the applicability of LSA-C.C.
  • Poole v. Poole 189 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    the Supreme Court enunciated the following: "(3,4) Under the provisions of Article 157 of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence of this court, the custody of a child whose parents have been legally divorced is left largely to the discretion of the trial judge under circumstances shown to exist when he
  • Hoffpauir v. Meche 189 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    691 , , , , thus: “Under the provisions of Article 157 of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence of this court, the custody of a child whose parents have been legally divorced is left largely to the discretion of the trial judge under circumstances shown to exist when he is called upon to act.
  • Maynard v. Fayard 181 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    603 , (1955); , 5S So.2d 836 (1952); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 215 La.
  • Schilling v. White 180 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    631 , (1949); , (1952); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
  • West v. West 170 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    (1952); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
  • Robicheaux v. Robicheaux 165 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Antony v. Antony 160 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    252 , ; , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Hebert v. Hebert 159 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Morris v. Morris 152 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Sachse v. Sachse 150 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Stevens v. Stevens 147 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    691 , , wherein at page 297 of 116 So.2d the Court said: “ , , thus: “ ‘Under the provisions of Article 157 of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence of this court, the custody of a child whose parents have been legally divorced is left largely to the discretion of the trial judge under circumstances shown to exist when he is called upon to act.
  • Carey v. Nastasi 147 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    485 , ; , ; Meyer v. Hackler, 219 La.
  • Kaufman v. Kaufman 146 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    the Supreme Court said: "* * * this court is reluctant to upset a judgment of the trial court in matters involving the custody of a child and will not do so except in cases where it is shown that the judge has abused the discretion vested in him.
  • Bush v. Bush 144 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    [2] , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Bosch v. Girradot 143 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
    288 , ; , ; Hayes v. Hayes, 225 La.
  • Moreau v. Moreau 142 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Sampagnaro v. Sampagnaro, 222 La.
  • Gilbert v. Hutchinson 135 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    784 , ; , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 215 La.
  • State ex rel. Hebert v. Knight 135 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
  • Baasen v. Baasen 133 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
  • Knight v. Knight 130 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Wade v. Wade 129 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    However, , , to the following effect: "The decree awarding custody is not, of course, conclusive for the future in the sense that it can never be changed.
  • Byrd v. Byrd 128 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    265 , ; , ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
  • Messner v. Messner 122 So. 2d 90 La. 1960
    631 , ; , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Salley v. Salley 116 So. 2d 296 La. 1959
    thus: “Under the provisions of Article 157 of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence of this court, the custody of a child whose parents have been legally divorced is left largely to the discretion of the trial judge under circumstances shown to exist when he is called upon to act.
  • Drouin v. Hildenbrand 105 So. 2d 532 La. 1958
    874 , , thus: "It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this state that in cases involving the custody of children the primary concern of the court is the welfare and best interest of the children ( , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Pilgrim v. Pilgrim 102 So. 2d 864 La. 1958
  • Boatner v. Boatner 102 So. 2d 472 La. 1958
    874 , , thus: “It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this state that in cases involving the custody of children the primary concern of the court is the welfare and best interest of the children ( , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Wall v. Wall 101 So. 2d 211 La. 1958
  • Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald 95 So. 2d 497 La. 1957
    603 , ; , ; Hattier v. Martinez, 197 La.
  • Cannon v. Cannon 74 So. 2d 147 La. 1954
    It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this state that in cases involving *877 -the custody of children the primary con■cern of the court is the welfare and best interest of the children ( , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Hayes v. Hayes 73 So. 2d 179 La. 1954
    288 , , , the facts and surrounding circumstances must be such as to lead fairly and necessarily to the conclusion that adultery has been committed as alleged in the petition.