DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wilmot v. Wilmot, 65 So. 2d 321.

85 citing documents.

  • Pattison v. Pattison 208 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Pullen v. Pullen, 161 La.
  • Lucas v. Lucas 195 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
  • Lucas v. Lucas 197 So. 2d 81 La. 1967
    Wheeler v. Wheeler, 184 La.
  • Gayle v. Gayle 191 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    465 , ; , ; and Wilson v. Wilson, La.App.
  • Nowlin v. McGee 180 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    890 (1928); , (1953); Graves v. Graves (La.App.
  • Nowlin v. McGee 180 So. 2d 541 La. 1965
    191 ; , ; Lukianoff v. Lukianoff, 166 La.
  • Maynard v. Fayard 181 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    Counsel for appellant relies upon this case and the following authorities cited therein: , (1953); (La.App.
  • Smith v. Smith 179 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Blackburn v. Blackburn 168 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    (1953) which held that once a court acquired jurisdiction of the marital status of the parties to an action for separation from bed and board, it retained jurisdiction over both parties in all matters incidental thereto, including questions of custody of the parties' minor children.
  • Wilson v. Wilson 157 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    310 , ; , ; Matheny v. Matheny, 205 La.
  • Poydras v. Poydras 155 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    *225 2d 912 , , as authority for increasing the amount of child support in the case at bar.
  • Fruehan v. Fruehan 153 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    646 , ]; , ; Brown v. Harris [ 225 La.
  • Sachse v. Sachse 150 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    relied upon heavily by able counsel for defendant does not support the principle that in custody proceedings courts enjoy discretion to prohibit removal of a child from its jurisdiction.
  • Misko v. Capuder 147 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    646 , ; , ; Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • Hicks v. Hicks 147 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    320 , ; , ; Smith v. Smith, 217 La.
  • Douglas v. Douglas 146 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    and the many cases cited therein.
  • Moreau v. Moreau 142 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    784 , ; , ; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 La.
  • Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    485 , ; , ; Liner v. Liner, 222 La.
  • Carlson v. Carlson 140 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    A , , wherein the court held that our courts are governed primarily by divorced spouses' minor children's welfare and best interests in determining whether to grant spouse awarded children's custody the permission to remove them to another state for residence.
  • Wilmot v. Wilmot 136 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    By reference, however, , , it appears that the parties *808 were divorced by judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on June 11, 1948, Mrs. Wilmot being awarded the custody of the two minor children of the marriage, Carolyn and Jane.
  • Gilbert v. Hutchinson 135 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    874 , ; , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Knight v. Knight 130 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    810 , ; , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Wilson v. Wilson 129 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Under the authority of Wilmot vs. Wilmot, , , and [LSA-] Civil Code Articles 230 and 231, the court finds that the children's custom of living (though on a scale higher than the average) would be about the same regardless of the person having their legal custody.
  • Rader v. Pegram 126 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    646 , ; , ; Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • Graves v. Graves 122 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    it was likewise held that a court acquiring jurisdiction of the marital status of the parties to an action for separation from bed and board retains jurisdiction over both parties in all matters incidental thereto, including questions of custody of the parties' minor children and alimony sought by the
  • Drouin v. Hildenbrand 105 So. 2d 532 La. 1958
    221, ) and that it is to the welfare and best interest of young children that the mother be awarded their custody unless she is shown to be morally unfit or otherwise unsuitable (Kieffer v. Heriard, supra; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra)."
  • Boatner v. Boatner 102 So. 2d 472 La. 1958
  • Jones v. Jones 93 So. 2d 917 La. 1957
  • Jones v. Jones 93 So. 2d 917 La. 1957
  • Howell v. Howell 85 So. 2d 885 La. 1956
  • Decker v. Landry 80 So. 2d 91 La. 1955
    789 , ; , and Estopinal v. Estopinal, 223 La.
  • Williams v. Barnette 76 So. 2d 912 La. 1954
    The real complaint of appellant appears to be, to quote from the brief of her counsel, that the District Court “in arriving at its decision in this matter took the position that a faher is only liable for the bare necessities of his minor children regardless of his means and financial circumstances.” , , it relating to an approved award of $425 per month for the support of two minor children and reading: “ * * * His obligation to support, maintain and educate the children is fixed by Article 227
  • Cannon v. Cannon 74 So. 2d 147 La. 1954
    784 , ; , ) and that it is to the welfare and best interest of young children that the mother be awarded their custody unless she is shown to be morally unfit or otherwise unsuitable (Kieffer v. Heriard, supra; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra).
  • Brown v. Harris 72 So. 2d 746 La. 1954
  • Willis v. Wilmot 65 So. 2d 330 La. 1953
    For the reasons stated in the opinion this day handed down in these consolidated cases, , , it is ordered that the judgment áppealed from on the rule involving alimony, bearing No. 40,476 of the docket of this Court be and the same is hereby affirmed at appellant’s costs.