Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Estopinal v. Estopinal, 66 So. 2d 311.

35 citing documents.

Monsour v. Monsour 347 So. 2d 203 La. 1977
Stelly v. Montgomery 339 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
App.1st Cir. 1971); , (1953); Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Southern v. Southern 308 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
2nd Cir. 1964); , (1953); Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Hudson v. Hudson 295 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
(1953); Messner v. Messner, supra; Brown v. Brown, supra; (La.
Henderson v. Boudreaux 290 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
4th Cir. 1971), , 66 So.
Johnson v. Johnson 268 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
Proof of one act of adultery, or even of several acts with the same paramour, does not necessarily render morally unfit a mother who is otherwise suited for custody, Salley v. Salley, supra, , ; Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Griffith v. Roy 256 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1953); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Strother v. Strother 248 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Proof of one act of adultery, or even of several acts with the same paramour, does not necessarily render morally unfit a mother who is otherwise suited for custody, Salley v. Salley, supra, , ; Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Jones v. Timber 247 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Messner v. Messner, above, , ; Bush v. Bush, above.
Overstreet v. Overstreet 244 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
(1953), but the presumption that the mother will be awarded custody is refuted if it is proven that the mother is morally unfit to have custody of the child.
Hicks v. Deer 222 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Distinguished Murray v. Murray 220 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Patrick v. Patrick 212 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
(1953) the court held the evidence of a single act of adultery committed by the mother did not render her morally unfit to have custody of her children.
Tiffee v. Tiffee 212 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
3d Cir. 1964); , (1953); (La.App.
Lovell v. Lovell 205 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 194 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
art. 157; , (1953); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Poole v. Poole 189 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
the Supreme Court, in affirming a judgment of the Trial Court, established the proposition that a single act of adultery on the part of the mother, with no showing that the mother was morally unfit to provide for the child's welfare, was not, per se, sufficient to deprive the mother of the custody of
Schroeder v. Schroeder 184 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
126 , , , , , Stevens v. Stevens, La.App., and Savin v. Savin, 218 La.
Brown v. Brown 180 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
(1953) and McCaa v. McCaa (La.App., 2 Cir., 1964) , writ refused 246 La.
Trawick v. Trawick 173 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
(1953); Baasen v. Baasen, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1961); McCaa v. McCaa, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1964).
West v. West 170 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
Defendant cites, in support of the proposition that she should be awarded the custody of the children, despite her misconduct, the following cases: , (1953); Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Fletcher v. Fletcher 170 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
Our conclusion finds legal support in the following cases: , (1953); Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
McCaa v. McCaa 163 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
(1953); Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Brunt v. Brunt 166 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
(2nd Cir.App.1962); , ; Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Antony v. Antony 160 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Morris v. Morris 152 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
to the effect that a single act of adultery is not sufficient to render a mother unsuitable as custodian of her minor children.
Carey v. Nastasi 147 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
126 , ; , ; Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
874 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Hanks v. Hanks 138 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Baasen v. Baasen 133 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Under a similar state of facts as exists in the instant case, the court, , , pointed out: "The law is well settled to the effect that in cases of custody of children, the mother is to be preferred unless she is shown to be morally unfit.
Messner v. Messner 122 So. 2d 90 La. 1960
This Court, , , covered the situation in the instant case as follows: “The law is well settled to the effect that in cases of custody of children, the mother is to be preferred unless she is shown to be morally unfit.
Salley v. Salley 116 So. 2d 296 La. 1959
which he cited and discussed in his reasons for judgment.
Sharp v. Sharp 81 So. 2d 833 La. 1955
Appellant recognizes the general rule that the mother has a paramount right to custody of the minor child, , , but contends that this is one of the exceptional cases provided for in Article 157 of the *129 Civil Code where it is to the greater advantage of the child that it be entrusted to the care of the father.
Decker v. Landry 80 So. 2d 91 La. 1955
Olivier v. Abunza 76 So. 2d 528 La. 1954
in giving consideration to the testimony of a co-respondent, we said : “The only direct proof of the adultery charged came from the lips of the co-respondent, one Frederick Turpin, whose testimony is strongly assailed by counsel for defendant.