Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Re Ackenhausen, 154 So. 2d 380.

72 citing documents.

Lynn v. Lynn 316 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
4 Cir., 1962) , affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in , (1963).
In Re Salmon 318 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
9:422.1 by the Supreme Court in , (1963), that the legislature never intended to forfeit the parental rights of a parent whose noncompliance with a court order to pay support was for reasons beyond his control and therefore justified.
In Re Stanford 313 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
1034 , (1966); , (1963); In Re LaFitte, 247 La.
Rodden v. Davis 293 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Cantrell v. Talley 291 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
1034 , (1966); , ; In Re LaFitte, 247 La.
In Re Adoption of Fouts 254 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
In the case of , (1963) the Supreme Court interpreted R.S.
In re Merrill 246 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Most reluctantly, I agree with the majority ruling that , , is decisive of the issue at hand.
In Re Genin 240 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
9:422.1 falls in this category, and in regard to its interpretation our Supreme Court has said: "In our recent decision in , , in determining the effect of the amendments to R.S.
In Re Spraggins 234 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
In the case of , , the Supreme Court said: "It is the settled jurisprudence of this court that adoption statutes are to be strictly complied with, In re Brandis' Estate, 153 La.
In re Daigle 232 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
We find three cases which bear upon this subject, namely, , ; In Re LaFitte, 247 La.
Stewart v. Stewart 233 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
App. 4 Cir., 1962) , affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in , (1963).
In Re State Ex Rel. Sharp 219 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
In re Adoption of Moody 201 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
856 , (1965) and , (1963) are controlling as to the issues presented in the instant case.
In Re State in Interest of Fischbein 194 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
856 , (1965); , (1963); (La.App.
Roy v. Speer 192 So. 2d 554 La. 1966
498 , ; , , and the authorities therein cited.
In re Adoption of Bickerstaff 190 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
*122 , , the Court stated: “It is the settled jurisprudence of this court that adoption statutes are to be strictly complied with, In re Brands’ Estate, 153 La.
In re Ledet 184 So. 2d 535 La. 1966
The case of , , cited by appellant in support of his contentions, was heard in this Court on Writ of Certiorari directed to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, for review of its judgment in an adoption proceeding.
Roy v. Speer 184 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
856 , ; , ; In re Hughes, La.App.
Nowlin v. McGee 180 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
App. 4 Cir., 1962) , affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in , (1963).
In Re Hughes 176 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Under the facts of this case, which we have related in detail and proper sequence from a careful reading of the transcript of testimony, our conclusion that the adoption should not have been granted, we thought, was amply supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in , (1963), and the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in (1964).
In Re LaFitte 174 So. 2d 804 La. 1965
In our recent decision in , , in determining the effect of the amendments to R.S.
In re LaFitte 168 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Such an interpretation, we think, is reflected in In Re Ackenhausen, (1963) , , presently the only appellant decision wherein the Court has been called upon to give application to LSA-R.S.