Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State Ex Rel. Girtman v. Ricketson, 60 So. 2d 88.

17 citing documents.

Reynaud v. Reynaud 387 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Moore v. Moore 379 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
(1952), which holds that a Louisiana court has jurisdiction over a minor in order to determine his legal custody when the minor is domiciled in, or is in, Louisiana.
Brummett v. Hudson 338 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1952); Tennyson v. Tennyson, La.App., (1st Cir., 1972).
Rafferty v. Rafferty 313 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
In reaching this conclusion the Lucas court expressed the opinion that section 5 of Article 10 , (1952) in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana announced that the state having the child within its borders has the right and even the duty under the doctrine of parens patriae, to act for the best interest of the child.
Tennyson v. Tennyson 263 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Mendivel v. Simpson 247 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Emery v. Emery 223 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Brewer v. Macaluso 221 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Hickman v. Hickman 218 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
the trial court refused to hear testimony from the mother to support allegations contained in her answer to the habeas corpus proceeding to the effect that a change in conditions had affected the welfare of the child.
Lucas v. Lucas 195 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
(1952), our Supreme Court had this to say with regard to the jurisdictional requirements of domicile and physical presence: "There is no doubt but that once the legal domicile of the child has been established by the court of one state, the question of his custody can be re-examined by that court if any
State ex rel. Cahill v. James 172 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Livingston v. Bond 167 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
and Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610 , 67 S.Ct.
Dungan v. Dungan 119 So. 2d 843 La. 1960
State Ex Rel. Lombardo v. Miller 94 So. 2d 888 La. 1957
we are reluctant to take the child from respondents at this particular time and will continue the care and custody of the subject child with them on a temporary basis, with, however, reservation of visitation rights and privileges to the parents, including having the child visit with relatrix.
Francis v. Carpenter 71 So. 2d 326 La. 1954
State Ex Rel. Huhn v. Huhn 70 So. 2d 391 La. 1954
Ricketson v. Girtman 63 So. 2d 3 La. 1953
the plaintiff had instituted this suit in the district court of Jefferson Parish seeking to regain the custody of her minor child which had been awarded to his father, from whom she was divorced, by the courts of the State of Florida.