Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Decker v. Landry, 80 So. 2d 91.

99 citing documents.

Gathen v. Gathen 66 So. 3d 1 La. 2011
691 , (1959); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Bergeron v. Bergeron 492 So. 2d 1193 La. 1986
382 , (1969); , (1955); Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
Guidry v. Guidry 441 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
1959); Decker v. Landry, [ ] Guillory v. Guillory, [ 221 La.
Lipari v. Lipari 396 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
[I]t is incumbent upon the party requesting the modification to prove that the conditions under which the children are living are detrimental to their interests and further that the applicant can and will provide a good home and better environment if given their custody.” , (La.
Ashley v. Gasper 392 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1955); Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
Howes v. Howes 388 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
It is therefore unnecessary to distinguish between or to consider the "heavy burden" requirement of (3) in Fulco , and the "double standard"
Bordelon v. Bordelon 381 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
The principal argument made on behalf of the father-appellee is that the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to apply the "double burden" , (1955).
Heymann v. Lewis 414 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
This court [3] has taken the position that the so called "double burden" , (1955), has been severely limited, if not entirely abrogated.
Schlegel v. Schlegel 375 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Cambre v. Cambre, La.App., ; , ; State ex rel.
Cambre v. Cambre 372 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Bergeron v. Bergeron, La.App., ; Brummett v. Hudson, La.App., .
Schexnayder v. Kincke 372 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
1st Cir. 1976); regarding the double burden rule, , (1955).
Pace v. Pace 372 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La.
Doyle v. Doyle 371 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
603, (1955); Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La.
Coltharp v. Coltharp 368 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
(1955) and Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
Myers v. Myers 370 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Hays v. Hays 365 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
381 , (1969); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
State Ex Rel. Killman v. Gurley 354 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Gorham v. Gorham 354 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
.it is incumbent upon the party requesting the modification to prove that the conditions under which the children are living are detrimental to their interests and further that the applicant can and will provide a good home and better environment if given their custody.” , (1955).
McCarstle v. McCarstle 356 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Languirand v. Languirand 350 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
The language in which the issue is stated comes from Fulco, supra, , (1955) and other cases.
Bushnell v. Bushnell 348 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Appellant couches his argument that the trial court erred principally on the old "double burden" , (1955) which was to the effect that a person seeking change of custody must prove that (1) the circumstances under which the child is living are deleterious to its welfare and (2) the applicant for a change in custody can provide a better environment.
Sawyer v. Sawyer 348 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
1st Cir. 1976); , (1955).
Greer v. Greer 346 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1955): to change custody after a considered determination has been made, the plaintiff must show that the present environment is deleterious to the children and that he can provide a better environment.
Schramm v. Simpson 343 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
381 , (1969); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillo-ry, 221 La.
Partin v. Partin 339 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
In discussing the specifications of error, we will first determine whether the defendant must bear the "double burden" , (1955), rehearing denied (1955).
Stevens v. Stevens 340 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
381 , (1969); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Brummett v. Hudson 338 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
App., 1st Cir., 1961); , (1955).
Acosta v. Acosta 334 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
691 , (1959); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Johnson v. Johnson 331 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
So.2d 91 (1955); Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La.
Finn v. Finn 335 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
So.2d 91 (1955); (La.App.
Sharpe v. Sharpe 328 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The trial judge found in favor of the mother, stating that she had sustained the so-called double burden of proving that the conditions in which the child was living were detrimental to the child's best interests and that she, as an applicant for custody, could and would provide a good home and better environment if given the custody of the child, , (1955).
Bourque v. Leger 322 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
The principal argument made in behalf of Mr. Leger on this appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to apply the old "double burden of proof" rule, a harsh, So.2d 91 (1955).
Lemons v. Lemons 325 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The "double-burden" , (1955) wherein the court states that when an initial custody decree has been rendered and a subsequent modification of that decree is sought, then it is incumbent upon the party requesting modification to prove that the conditions under which the children are presently living are detrimental to their int
Fontenot v. Fontenot 327 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
381 , (1969); So.2d 91 (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Caraway v. Caraway 321 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
381 , (1969); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Grimes v. Johnson 323 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
No issue is made as to the application of the “double burden” , (1955), and recognized in Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
Lagrone v. Lagrone 311 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
Swann v. Young 311 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
The defendant-appellee, in alleging the correctness thereof, relies essentially on the so-called "double burden" rule, , (1955) and later applied in Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La.
Whatley v. Whatley 312 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Appellant also contends, , that the Arkansas judgment of custody imposes on Appellant the double burden of establishing a detrimental change in the home environment of the minors since initial custody was granted, and showing that Appellant is willing and able to provide a better home environment, which Appellant failed to do.
Pourciau v. Pourciau 307 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Mouille v. Mouille 306 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Gulino v. Gulino 303 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
The crucial issue is whether Appellant is required to discharge the double burden imposed upon a parent seeking a change of custody, , .
Simon v. Cobb 300 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
*614 I feel, also, inasmuch as this litigation involves one parent seeking to change a prior custody award, , (1955).
Jordan v. Jordan 294 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
381 , (1969); , (La.App.
Whitfield v. Whitfield 295 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
381 , (1969); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Earnest v. Earnest 286 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
691 , (1959); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Gustin v. Rouillier 275 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Stuckey v. Stuckey 276 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
691 , (1959); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
Malone v. Malone 271 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Smith v. Martin 269 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Decker v. Landry, supra, [ , ]; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra, [ 222 La.