DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

99 citing documents.

  • Malbrough v. Malbrough 267 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Rayner v. Rayner 263 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    381 , (1969); , (1955); Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La.
  • Terebelo v. Spencer 261 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Cromwell v. Cromwell 261 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    When one seeks to have an award of custody modified, “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).
  • Bergeron v. Bergeron 257 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    He has the burden of proving “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).
  • Griffith v. Roy 256 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1955); Poitevent v. Poitevent, La.App., (1963); Fletcher v. Fletcher, La.App., (1964); Overstreet v. Over-street, La.App., (1971).
  • Fulco v. Fulco 254 So. 2d 603 La. 1971
    381 , (1969) ; , (1955) ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 *1129 La.
  • Cenac v. Power 253 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Hebert v. Mestayer 251 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Marchand v. Marchand 246 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    The burden of proof required in a , (1955): “ * * * 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.” It is also well se
  • King v. King 245 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    and the multitude of cases that have followed it.
  • Creed v. Moriarty 244 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    He contends that the party seeking to change the custody bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a change is in the best interest of the children, , (1955) and many of the cases following that decision.
  • Phillips v. Phillips 244 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1955), the Supreme Court stated that a person seeking a change in a custody judgment must show not only fitness in themselves but that the conditions under which the children are presently living are detrimental to their welfare.
  • Estes v. Estes 244 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1955); Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La.
  • Hollie v. Simon 242 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1955) ; LeBlanc, (La.App.
  • Nugent v. Nugent 232 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
  • Tiffee v. Tiffee 223 So. 2d 840 La. 1969
    this Court enunciated the following principles governing a change of custody: “This is not a case wherein the parents of the children are initially contesting the right of one over the other to custody.
  • Siggio v. Siggio 217 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Wells v. Wells, La.App.3d Cir., .
  • Jackson v. Jackson 217 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    See, also, , (1955), wherein the custody of two minor children was maintained in their father.
  • Cenac v. Power 211 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    (1955), which holds that the welfare of the child is the prime consideration; that the question of custody may be inquired into at any time; and is subject to modification when a change in conditions demands it.
  • Dixon v. Dixon 211 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    In August, 1965, when Mr. Dixon filed suit for a final divorce, Mrs. Dixon attempted to regain custody of the child, , (1955), and custody remained with the father.
  • Holmes v. Roberts 203 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    The burden of proof incumbent on the party contesting a , .
  • State ex rel. Bannister v. Bannister 198 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Lucas v. Lucas 195 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
  • Eiswirth v. Eiswirth 195 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    1 , ; , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 194 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
  • Pickens v. Hawayek 186 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    1 , ; , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Thibodeaux v. Roscoe 182 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Fletcher v. Fletcher, La.App.
  • State ex rel. Gaspard 182 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Maynard v. Fayard 181 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    916 , (1957); , (1955); Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
  • Wells v. Wells 180 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Currie v. Currie 180 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    784 , [1953]; , [1955]; [La.App.1961]).
  • Rose v. Rose 177 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    (1955); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 215 La.
  • Capuder v. Misko 177 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney 178 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    603 , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Fletcher v. Fletcher 170 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    (1955); , La.App., 1st Cir.1961.
  • Malpica v. Puig 166 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    Plaintiff’s appeal is based upon the rule, , , Gentry v. Gentry, La.App., , Smith v. Smith, La.App., , and Poitevent v. Poitevent, La.App., , that a judgment awarding the permanent care and custody of children will not be modified unless the party seeking modification proves that the conditions under which t
  • Brunt v. Brunt 166 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See also Gentry v. Gentry, La.App., (1st Cir.App.1962); Hanks v. Hanks, La.App., (1st Cir.App.1962, writ of certiorari denied); , .
  • Hebert v. Hebert 159 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    810 , ; , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • 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
  • Douglas v. Douglas 146 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Gary v. Gary 143 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    (2d) 3 (1953) and Decker v. *919 Landry [ ], 80 So.
  • Smith v. Smith 141 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Hanks v. Hanks 138 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    in refusing a wife's request for modification of a prior custody decree in favor of the husband, the Supreme Court stated: "At the outset, it is well to point out that the many cases cited by counsel for appellant in support of the contention that the mother is to be preferred in contests involving the
  • Gentry v. Gentry 136 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Boatner v. Boatner 102 So. 2d 472 La. 1958
    At this juncture, it is apt to dispose of a contention made by defense counsel to the effect that the above stated jurisprudence does not obtain here but, rather, , .
  • Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald 95 So. 2d 497 La. 1957