DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Monsour v. Monsour, 347 So. 2d 203.

51 citing documents.

  • Ramsey v. Morales 131 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    (same: primary consideration was welfare of child, not past misconduct of custodian.)
  • Melancon v. Bergeron 598 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Fulco v. Fulco, supra; (La.
  • State ex rel. Hulin 543 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The “reformation” where the mother had been living in open adultery for a period of four months at the time that the father filed the rule to change custody.
  • Cassidy v. Cassidy 514 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed an appellate court's decision to remove a child from its mothers custody.
  • Albarado v. Toler 495 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Fulco v. Fulco, supra; Atteberry v. Atteberry, 379 So.2d.
  • Hicks v. Hicks 488 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Dykes v. Dykes 488 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Barton v. Minton 484 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Anderson v. Anderson 469 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Clark v. Clark 467 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Fulco v. Fulco, supra; (La.
  • Legrand v. Legrand 455 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • Peters v. Peters 449 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Lasseigne v. Lasseigne 434 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Stewart v. Stewart 430 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Walton v. Deblieux 428 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Griffin v. Griffin 424 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Vincent v. Vincent 420 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bagents v. Bagents 419 So. 2d 460 La. 1982
  • Rutland v. Rutland 415 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • 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
    1st Cir. 1980); Fulco, supra
  • Nale v. Nale 409 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Bonner v. Bonner 408 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Hilderbrand v. Hilderbrand 391 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Shackleford v. Shackleford 389 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    The "reformation" in which the mother *828 had been living in open adultery for a period of four months at the time that the father filed the rule to change custody.
  • Howes v. Howes 388 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Foret v. Foret 388 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Pickett v. Pickett 385 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    1122 , (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.
  • Burt v. McKee 384 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Atteberry v. Atteberry 379 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    in which the mother had been living in open adultery for a period of four months at the time the father filed a rule to change custody of a nine-year-old boy.
  • Crow v. Crow 383 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Steadman v. Steadman 393 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Schober v. Schober 380 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    As to Mrs. Schober’s illicit relationship, the trial judge applied the rationale of *140 (La.
  • Bride v. Thom 378 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    2d Cir. 1977); (1977); Fulco v. Fulco, supra.
  • Wilson v. Wilson 378 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Heymann v. Lewis 414 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    See also, and Hays v. Hays, supra.
  • Shanklin v. Shanklin 376 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
  • Schexnayder v. Schexnayder 371 So. 2d 769 La. 1979
    Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
  • Doyle v. Doyle 371 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    ” , (La.1977) the Supreme Court reiterated that the primary consideration in any custody award is the welfare of the child.
  • Coltharp v. Coltharp 368 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • McCurdy v. McCurdy 369 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    2d Cir. 1976), which was later reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court
  • Dugas v. Dugas 366 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Hays v. Hays 365 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Harrison v. Harrison 359 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Blaine v. Smith 357 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Baber v. Baber 354 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    See Monsour v. Monsour, La.1977, ; Fulco v. Fulco, 1971, 259 La.
  • 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); Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
  • McCarstle v. McCarstle 356 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In Monsour v. Monsour, La., (1977), the Supreme Court stated: "In the case of Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Truelove v. Truelove 350 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Languirand v. Languirand 350 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977