Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pepiton v. Pepiton, 64 So. 2d 3.

34 citing documents.

Bergeron v. Bergeron 492 So. 2d 1193 La. 1986
603 , (1955); , (1953); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Hudson v. Hudson 295 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Smith v. Martin 269 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
603 , ]; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra, [ , ]; Wells v. Wells, La.App., ; Poitevent v. Poitevent, La.App., ; Gary v. Gary, La.App., ; Hanks v. Hanks, La.App., ; Gentry v. Gentry, La.App., .” A reading of the trial judge’s oral reasons for judgment, supra, clearly supports this con
Griffith v. Roy 256 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1953) and Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Overstreet v. Overstreet 244 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Estes v. Estes 244 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Lovell v. Lovell 205 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
252 , (1960); , (1953); Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
Holmes v. Roberts 203 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Decker v. Landry, supra; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra [, , ]; Wells v. Wells, La.App., ; Poitevent v. Poitevent, La.
Eiswirth v. Eiswirth 195 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
691 , ; , ; Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
Pickens v. Hawayek 186 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
603 , ; , ; Tullier v. Tullier, La.App., .
Duplantis v. Bueto 186 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
App., 3 Cir., , certiorari denied, and jurisprudence therein cited.” , , imposes the same burden of proof on the mother seeking revision of a prior award of custody to the husband.
Currie v. Currie 180 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
itevent v. Poitevent (4th Cir., 1963, writs denied), , in which the court stated: “Psychiatric treatment of itself is not evidence of mental incapacity and, therefore, we are unable to conclude, for obvious reasons, that it alone renders a person incompetent either to stand in judgment or to rationally decide upon pursuing a course of action.” (Authorities cited, , [1953]; Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Capuder v. Misko 177 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
603 , ; , ; Hanks v. Hanks, La.App., (1st Cir. 1962); Gentry v. Gentry, La.App., (1st Cir. 1961); Smith v. Smith, La.App., (1st Cir. 1962); Reeves v. Reeves, La.
State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney 178 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
603 , ; , ; Matheny v. Matheny, 205 La.
Malpica v. Puig 166 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
Antony v. Antony 160 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Hebert v. Hebert 159 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
603 , ; , ; Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
Ray v. Ray 159 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Poitevent v. Poitevent 152 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
Mouton v. Romain 153 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Gary v. Gary 143 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
869 , ; , ; and Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Moreau v. Moreau 142 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
597 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
* * * the Court believes that the judgment of custody rendered therein is sufficient to bring this case within the general principles enunciated in the cases of Pepiton v. Pepiton [ ], 64 So.
Smith v. Smith 141 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
603 , ; , , and Matheny v. Matheny, 205 La.
Hanks v. Hanks 138 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Gentry v. Gentry 136 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Gilbert v. Hutchinson 135 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
221 , ; , ; Kieffer v. Heriard, 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
221 , ; , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
Messner v. Messner 122 So. 2d 90 La. 1960
Davis v. Davis 115 So. 2d 355 La. 1959
Higginbotham v. Lofton, 183 La.
Drouin v. Hildenbrand 105 So. 2d 532 La. 1958
597 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 *534 La.
Boatner v. Boatner 102 So. 2d 472 La. 1958
597 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Cannon v. Cannon 74 So. 2d 147 La. 1954
2d 11 ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.