DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cannon v. Cannon, 74 So. 2d 147.

14 citing documents.

  • Griffith v. Roy 256 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    374 , (1952) ; , (1954).
  • Jones v. Timber 247 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
  • State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney 178 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    2d 641 , , , as authority for his contention that a wife and mother* has *494 the paramount right to the custody of the minor child born of the marriage and this right can only be overcome by showing that the mother is unfit to care for the children.
  • Bush v. Bush 144 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    NOTES [1] , ; Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
  • Moreau v. Moreau 142 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    221 , ; , ; Drouin v. Hildenbrand, 235 La.
  • Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    603 , ; , ; Estopinal v. Estopinal, 223 La.
  • Carlson v. Carlson 140 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
  • Smith v. Smith 141 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    25 , , , , as authority for his contention that a wife and mother has the paramount right to the custody of the minor child born of the marriage and this right can only be overcome by showing that the mother is unfit to care for the children.
  • Gilbert v. Hutchinson 135 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    810 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
  • Baasen v. Baasen 133 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, supra; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra; , ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La.
  • Knight v. Knight 130 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Drouin v. Hildenbrand, supra; , .
  • Messner v. Messner 122 So. 2d 90 La. 1960
    Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, supra; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra; , ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La.
  • Drouin v. Hildenbrand 105 So. 2d 532 La. 1958
    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 (Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
  • Boatner v. Boatner 102 So. 2d 472 La. 1958
    *9 , , 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 (Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.