DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Schramm v. Simpson 343 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The attorneys are referring, of course, , (1971), which the Supreme Court prescribed as governing child custody decisions.
  • Stelly v. Montgomery 339 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In deciding the issue presented on its merits, I , (1971).
  • Partin v. Partin 339 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1971), rehearing denied (1971).
  • Beck v. Beck 341 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • Stevens v. Stevens 340 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    LAW: , : "(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Howard v. Howard 339 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Franklin v. Franklin 338 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Brummett v. Hudson 338 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • State in Interest of Purcell 337 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Miller v. Miller 336 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Acosta v. Acosta 334 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The thrust of her argument is that the defendant has the burden of proving she is an unfit mother and in the absence of such proof, , (1971).
  • Denton v. Meshell 335 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    There we said: " , (1971), this mother had not ceased living in concubinage and had not moved with the child into a more conventional home at the time change of custody was sought and awarded.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 331 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Finn v. Finn 335 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1971), defendant-appellant argues that children cannot be taken from their mother for her past actions but only if it is in the best interest of the children.
  • Parks v. Parks 331 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    This is where he wants to be.” , (1971), this .mother had not ceased living in concubinage and had not moved with the child into a more conventional home at the time change of custody was sought and awarded.
  • Meyers v. Meyers 324 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Scrimsher v. Toler 331 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Sharpe v. Sharpe 328 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Bourque v. Leger 322 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Our Supreme Court, however, , (1971), discarded the so called "double burden of proof" rule, and instead the court set out clear and understandable guidelines which are to be followed in determining to whom custody of children should be awarded, whether the case involves the initial awarding of custody or the transfer of custody fr
  • Lemons v. Lemons 325 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Subsequently, , (1971), the Supreme Court, citing Landry , stated: "(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
  • Fontenot v. Fontenot 327 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Counsel is well aware of the Fulco case, [(Fulco v. Fulco) , (1971)] of course, in which a mother given custody of her children in a situation somewhat similar to this, where at the time the suit was filed the mother was living in an immoral environment, but prior to the trial of the case she had straightened her life out, and the Court then found that under tho
  • Caraway v. Caraway 321 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    (1971), enunciated the following principle: "(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Grimes v. Johnson 323 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Brackman v. Brackman 322 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    On this appeal Darlene Brackman contends the trial judge's ruling is in violation of the "maternal preference rule" , (1971)
  • Lynn v. Lynn 316 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    The legal principles to be applied in a , (1971).
  • Broussard v. Broussard 320 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Morrison v. Morrison 316 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Lagrone v. Lagrone 311 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    Nethkin v. Nethkin, supra; , (1971) and Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
  • Southern v. Southern 308 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    (1971) and Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
  • Lloyd v. Lloyd 313 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    Therefore, , (1971) is applicable and that plaintiff in rule must allege and prove: (1) that the children are in a deleterious situation, and (2) that a change in custody would be in the best interest of the children.
  • Cawthorne v. Williams 313 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
  • DeCelle v. DeCelle 313 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    (1971) established the following legal principles as applicable to a suit for change of custody: (1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Ingram v. Saragusa 313 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The general rule is that in a contest between a parent and a non-parent for custody of a child, the parent's right is superior, unless the parent is shown to be unable or unfit to care for the child, or has forfeited his parental rights, , (1971); (La.App.
  • Swann v. Young 311 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Bryan v. Bryan 311 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Whatley v. Whatley 312 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Parker v. Parker 304 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Berry v. Berry 307 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    20 , [1972]; , [1971]), this preference is not absolute.
  • Pourciau v. Pourciau 307 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    20 , (1972), the court, , (1971), summarized the applicable legal principles concerning custody of children, as follows: “(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.” “(2) The general rule is that it is in the best interest of the children of the marria
  • Welch v. Welch 307 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    (1971) (citing authorities); (2) Upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight.
  • Nethken v. Nethken 307 So. 2d 563 La. 1975
  • Prevot v. Williams 306 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1971), two prerequisites must be found for the mother who has been guilty of adultery to gain custody of her children: (1) The finding that the im *381 moral conduct ceases as of the time of the move to change the custody, and (2) a finding of there being an absence of present cause shown for continue
  • Nieto v. Nieto 306 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    This appeal by a father seeking to change child custody is almost identical to Fulco v. Fulco, 1971, , 254 So.
  • Gulino v. Gulino 303 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    In support of his contention that the "double burden" is applicable herein because he has been granted permanent custody, as distinguished from temporary custody, , ; Bergeron v. Bergeron, La.App., ; Holmes v. Holmes, La.App., ; Pickens v. Pickens, La.App., ; Wells v. Wells, La.App., ; Pointevent v. Pointevent, La.App., ; Gary v. Gary, La.App., ; Smith v. Smith, La.App., 141 So.2d
  • State in Interest of Taylor 296 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    (1971) and cases there cited.
  • Taylor v. Taylor 295 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    (1971); Drouin v. Hildenbrand, 235 La.
  • Simon v. Cobb 300 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Jordan v. Jordan 294 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    (1971); Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
  • Whitfield v. Whitfield 295 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    The Court is going to leave custody exactly where it is.” The jurisprudence of this state relative to custody, , is as follows: “The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Hudson v. Hudson 295 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    (1971), as detailed by the Supreme Court.