DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fulco v. Fulco, 254 So. 2d 603.

227 citing documents.

  • Catalanotto v. Catalanotto 430 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Kessler v. Spohrer 428 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    While there are a number of cases holding that it is usually in the best interest of a young child to be with the mother, [ , (1971); (La.App.
  • Marlatt v. Marlatt 427 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Finally, , is cited for the proposition that deprivation of custody of a minor child should not be utilized as punishment for a mother who occasionally transgresses the moral code.
  • Murphy v. Murphy 427 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Fulco [v. Fulco, , (1971)]
  • Crooks v. Crooks 425 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Fulco, supra [ , (1971)]
  • Griffin v. Griffin 424 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    NOTES [1] In light of certain amendments to La.Civil Code 157, the Bordelon case disapproved of the multiple considerations for a , (1971).
  • Parker v. Parker 424 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Bordelon, supra, Ohman, supra, Cleeton
  • Ohman v. Ohman 422 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Vincent v. Vincent 420 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The Shackleford court observed, however, that our Supreme Court has tempered this general rule with its adoption of the “reformation rule”, , (1971); (La.
  • Wallace v. Wallace 420 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Fulco, [ , ] supra; (La.
  • Jaubert v. Conforto 420 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    20 , (1972); , (1971); (La.App.
  • Faust v. Faust 421 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Fuleo [v. Fulco, , ], supra
  • Bagents v. Bagents 419 So. 2d 460 La. 1982
  • Cooley v. Cooley 411 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Fulco [v. Fulco, , ], supra
  • Duplantis v. Monteaux 412 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Leckie v. Leckie 415 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Johnston v. McCullough 410 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
    the legislature amended C.C.
  • James v. James 409 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Nale v. Nale 409 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Litton v. Lewis 409 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Bagents v. Bagents 408 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Thomas v. Thom 408 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    [18] In its reasons for initially granting the directed verdict, the trial court applied the "double burden" , (1971).
  • Bonner v. Bonner 408 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Norkin v. Joseph 407 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Stephens v. Stephens 407 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Bazar v. Bazar 406 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Stephenson v. Stephenson 404 So. 2d 963 La. 1981
    (1971); Schexnayder v. Schexnayder, supra.
  • Johnston v. McCullough 401 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Powell v. Barsavage 399 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    art. 157; , (1971); (La.App.
  • Moreau v. Moreau 400 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Fulco [v. Fulco, , (1971)], supra
  • Ferguson v. Ferguson 398 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    112 , (1971); Cleeton v. Cleeton, supra.
  • Prattini v. Daughtry 396 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1971), which held that a party seeking a change of custody has a heavy burden of proving that the present custody is deliterious to the children, no longer applies as a substantive criterion for changing custody.
  • Hilderbrand v. Hilderbrand 391 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Autrey v. Highbaugh 395 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Counsel for plaintiff argues that the trial judge erred in applying the so called “double burden” in this case because the decree of custody was not a considered one.
  • Jowers v. Jowers 393 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The law governing custody disputes has undergone changes in recent years but one principle has remained constant and applies *792 , (1971).
  • Flournoy v. Flournoy 392 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Campbell v. Prejean 392 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    112 , : “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 continuation of the pres
  • Read v. Fontenot 392 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Manley v. Manley 389 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    (1971) on review of child custody matters the decision of the trial judge is to be given great weight and such decision is not to be overturned in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
  • Ashley v. Gasper 392 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Kashefi v. Kashefi 393 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1971), provides the guidelines for Trial Courts and Courts of Appeal in change of custody cases.
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 390 So. 2d 1325 La. 1980
  • Landry v. Ockman 389 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Shackleford v. Shackleford 389 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Le Bouef v. Fontenot 390 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    The rule stated in Civil Code Article 157 and established in our jurisprudence, , (1971), is that in custody cases the paramount consideration is always the best interest of the child.
  • Duffie v. Duffie 387 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    art. 157; , (1971); (La.App.
  • Howes v. Howes 388 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    which specified: (1) Paramount consideration is the welfare of the child.
  • Deese v. Deese 387 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Foret v. Foret 388 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    App. 1st Cir. 1979), we said: “It is settled that, following a ‘considered decree’ of custody, one seeking a change of custody bears the burden of proving ‘that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the children as to justify removing them from the environment to which they are accustomed.’ , (1971)
  • Pickett v. Pickett 385 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1971) (1977) mandated that: *894 Upon appellate review the determination of the trial court in child custody matters is entitled to great weight and its discretion on the issue will not be disturbed on review in absence of a clear showing of abuse.