DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wood v. Beard, 290 So. 2d 675.

87 citing documents.

  • In Re: Clemmie Leon Porter Applying for the Adoption of L.R.C. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
    Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1972); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1972); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 98 S. Ct. 549, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1978); (La.
  • Andrew Taylor Smith v. Angelica Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
  • S.B. in the Interest of A. J. N. and S. R. N. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
  • Tracie F. v. Francisco D. 174 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Jones v. Coleman, 18 So.3d at 158 ().
  • Willhite v. Willhite 17 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Action of the District Court In a written opinion, 2 the district court found “some negative evidence against the mother in the past some years ago,” but focused on “the situation as it exists today.” Noting that the parent has a paramount right to custody as against a non-parent, the court concluded that Jane had not borne the burden of proof necessary to deprive Rachel of custody of her child.
  • Jones v. Coleman 18 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • Mills v. Wilkerson 785 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Martin v. Dupont, 32,490 (La.
  • Willis v. Duck 733 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    the mother filed in district court a petition for writ of habeas corpus to recover the custody of her child from the grandparents.
  • Clark v. Kleidon 682 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Art. 146 as amended by 1982 La.Acts, No. 307
  • Lewis v. Adams 679 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • In Re Custody of Landry 662 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    146 as amended by 1982 La.Acts, No. 307
  • In Interest of CLS 649 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Millet v. Andrasko 640 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    5th Cir.1983); -77 (La.1974).
  • Blaine v. Granger 616 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    We find no merit in appellants’ assignment of error or their exceptions based upon the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
  • Schloegel v. Schloegel 584 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Pittman v. Jones 559 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Article 146 was amended in 1982, and as amended, which required a finding that the parent is unable or unfit to provide a home for the child or a finding that the parent has forfeited their paramount parental rights before awarding custody to a nonparent, (La.App.
  • Lewis v. Taylor 554 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Merritt v. Merritt 550 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Johnson v. Sullivan 545 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Walker v. Washington 540 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Parental Rights to Custody of Natural Children Historically, Louisiana's rule of law, and followed by this court in State in the Interest of Taylor, (La.App.
  • Hughes v. McKenzie 539 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • McManus v. McManus 528 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Parker v. Payton 511 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Gordy v. Langner 502 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    in which the parent's right to custody was considered superior to that of a non-parent unless there was a showing that the parent was unable or unfit.
  • In Re Bourg 501 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • Dubois v. Dartez 494 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Adoption of Baby Doe 492 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Boykin v. Corless 488 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    The old standard, required the nonparent to prove that the parent(s) was unfit or unable to provide a home for the child.
  • Batiste v. Guillory 479 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Carroll v. Carroll 476 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    as her authority, defendantappellant, *979 Katherine Annette Matthews Carroll, hereinafter "Katherine", strongly urges that her peremptory exception of no cause or right of action should have been maintained and the Belews' petition for custody dismissed.
  • State ex rel. T.T. 472 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Recknagel v. Roberts 465 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    which requires a finding that the parent be found unable or unfit to provide a home for the child or a finding that the parent has forfeited the paramount parental right.
  • Johnson on Behalf of Johnson v. Earls 464 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Wood v. Beard, supra [ ] at 677.
  • In the Interest of Street 463 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Berzins v. Betts 457 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    State in the Interest of Taylor (La.App.
  • Durr v. Blue 454 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Smith v. STATE, DIV. OF FAMILY SER., DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES 452 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    concurring opinion and State ex rel.
  • Boyett v. Boyett 448 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    as the most often cited pronouncement of these rules, he contends that, under the amended statute, in order to award custody to a nonparent the court still must find the parent unable or unfit to provide a home for the child or find a forfeiture by the parent of the paramount or superior parental right to c
  • In Matter of Williams 447 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    State in the Interest of Simolke, (La.App.
  • In Re Murray 445 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    The consequence of this finding is not that it is dispositive of the issue of custody, but rather that Vinet has the paramount right to custody, and may be deprived of that custody only for compelling reasons inimical to the welfare of the child
  • Guidry v. Guidry 441 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Gilcrease v. Gilcrease 438 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Matter of Parker 434 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • McLeod v. McLeod 434 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The appellant contends that she is competing for custody against Chris McLeod’s parents, not Chris, and therefore, the trial court erred in failing to find that she, as a parent, has a (La.App.
  • Stewart v. Goeb 432 So. 2d 246 La. 1983
    1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977); La.Civ.Code art. 216
  • State in Interest of Jones v. Jones 430 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Kessler v. Spohrer 428 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • In Interest of Boudreaux 427 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Appellants argue that since this is a contest for custody between parents and non-parents, appellees should be required to prove them unfit as parents, and Griffith v. Roy, 263 La.
  • Newman v. Cancienne 425 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    the cornerstone of the applicable law in our state, held that when parents compete with non-parents for the custody of children, “[t]he parent’s right to custody is superior, unless the parent is unable or unfit, having forfeited parental rights.” The Louisiana Supreme Court has limited the basis for *343 r
  • State in Interest of Simolke 422 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982