DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Estes v. Estes, 258 So. 2d 857.

63 citing documents.

  • Holland v. Spellman 71 So. 3d 996 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Touchet v. Touchet 836 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    (1972); Roberie v. Roberie, 33,168 (La.
  • Francois v. Leon 834 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Greene v. Taylor 809 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Masters v. Masters 795 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Hill v. Hill 777 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Washkow v. Washkow 765 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • Roberie v. Roberie 749 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Fountain v. Waguespack 639 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Hicks v. Hicks 594 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    Bergeron v. Bergeron, supra; , (1972).
  • Palazzo v. Coe 562 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    (1972); Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Waits v. Waits 556 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    1986); , (1972); (La.App.
  • Lauga v. Lauga 537 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Parker v. Payton 511 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Hartt v. Jones 503 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Bergeron v. Bergeron 492 So. 2d 1193 La. 1986
    (1972); Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La.
  • Baudoin v. Hebert 463 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Suire v. Jagneaux 422 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Jaubert v. Conforto 420 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    (1972); Falco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Campbell v. Prejean 392 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    : “Further, an appellate court must give great weight to the trial court’s considered determination of custody.
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 390 So. 2d 1325 La. 1980
  • State Ex Rel. Killman v. Gurley 354 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    1122 , (1971) and specifically reiterated in Estes v. Estes , (1972) control.
  • Gorham v. Gorham 354 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    We held recently in McCarstle v. McCarstle (1st Cir. 1977) that the best interest of the child was the main consideration, and that a heavy burden was demanded of one who seeks to change custody, relying upon Monsour v. Monsour, La., (1977); , (1972); and Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • 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
    (1972), wherein a temporary surrender of children was involved.
  • Bushnell v. Bushnell 348 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    [2] , (1972) where Justice Tate applied these principles to a case where only temporary custody had been granted.
  • Snell v. Snell 347 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Cramer ex rel. Mowery v. Mowery 346 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1972) the Supreme Court applied those principles in determining the correctness of a change in custody by a trial court.
  • Partin v. Partin 339 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1972), rehearing denied (1972).
  • Parks v. Parks 331 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Meyers v. Meyers 324 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    1122 , ; , ; Malone v. Malone, La.App., .
  • Bourque v. Leger 322 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    1975); , (1972); (La.App.
  • Grimes v. Johnson 323 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    603 , (1955), , (1972), and Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Lynn v. Lynn 316 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Southern v. Southern 308 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • DeCelle v. DeCelle 313 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
  • Swann v. Young 311 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    1975); , (1972), and Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Berry v. Berry 307 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Although the mother has the preferred right to custody ( [La.1973]; , [1972]; Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Pourciau v. Pourciau 307 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1972), the court, pointing to Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Welch v. Welch 307 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    Compare Barham, J., dissenting, , (1972); Comment, 34 La.L.Rev.
  • Nethken v. Nethken 307 So. 2d 563 La. 1975
    (1972) and Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Followed Mouille v. Mouille 306 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    In considering custody matters we follow the legal principles announced in *321 , , (1972) which may be summarized as follows: (1) The paramount consideration is always the welfare of the children.
  • McCrae v. McCrae 305 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    as follows: (1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Gulino v. Gulino 303 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    In further support of his position, , ; Nieto v. Nieto, La.App., ; Gustin v. Tregle, La.App., , and Penton v. Penton, La.
  • Simon v. Cobb 300 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    2d 603 (1971); , (1972).
  • Jordan v. Jordan 294 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    1122 , (1971); , (1972); Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
  • Edisen v. Uskali 297 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • LeGrand v. LeGrand 295 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    In a detailed and well reasoned judgment, he concluded that the procedural posture of the case, along with the stipulation, , (1972): “ ‘(3) When the trial court has made a considered decree of permanent custody in the light of the above principles, even though such custody is subject to modification at any -time when a change of conditions demands it, the party seeking the change bears a heavy burden of proving that the cont
  • Pipes v. Pipes 293 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 293 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    .” , (1972); “Further, an appellant court must give great weight to the trial court’s considered determination of custody.