DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cleeton v. Cleeton, 383 So. 2d 1231.

103 citing documents.

  • McCaffery v. McCaffery 140 So. 3d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Ramsey v. Morales 131 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    (upholding award of custody to wife whose past adulterous behavior was not shown to have had any detrimental effect on the children); (same).
  • Schneider v. Schneider 115 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    were •not followed and in spite of the fact Louisiana courts have consistently held that “an award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Trent Harvey v. Kelly (Singleton) Harvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Although a custody decree may not be used as a tool to regulate human behavior, our review of the record indicates that the trial court did not do so.
  • Harvey v. Harvey 133 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Although a custody decree may not be used as a tool to regulate human behavior, our review of the record indicates that the trial court did not do so.
  • Gathen v. Gathen 66 So. 3d 1 La. 2011
    (on reh'g), we granted a rehearing in part to address an "important particular” overlooked by the Court on original hearing, which was that it erred in applying the manifest error standard.
  • Thibodeaux v. O'QUAIN 33 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    We are keenly aware that "[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.’’
  • Rosalind Reed Thibodeaux v. Lauren Wade O'Quain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    We are keenly aware that “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Shivers v. Shivers 16 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    The only object is the best interest of the child.”
  • Richardson v. Richardson 974 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • Silbernagel v. Silbernagel 958 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
  • R.J. v. M.J. 880 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Rj v. Mj 880 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Walet v. Caulfield 858 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Major v. Major 849 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Lewis v. Lewis 771 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    ( on rehearing ); Powell v. Powell, 28,911 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/96), ; Stephens v. Smith, 30,028 (La.App.2d Cir.12/10/97), ; Stewart v. Stewart, 30,161 (La.App.2d Cir.01/21/98); , writ denied 98-0748 (La.05/01/98), 718
  • Crowson v. Crowson 742 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    ( on rehearing ); Powell v. Powell, 28,911 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/96), ; Stephens v. Smith, 30,028 (La.App.2d Cir.12/10/97), ; Stewart v. Stewart, 30,161 (La.App.2d Cir.1/21/98), , writ denied 98-0748 (La.5/1/98), 718 So
  • Bynog v. Bynog 663 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Hensgens v. Hensgens 653 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Boyd v. Boyd 647 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Cooley v. Cooley 643 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    on rehearing, the Supreme Court held that to change custody simply because of concubinage would be to punish the mother when there is no proof of detrimental effect on the daughters.
  • Slack v. Slack 641 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Melancon v. Bergeron 598 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Fulco v. Fulco, supra; (La.
  • Montgomery v. Marcantel 591 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    1 Cir.1979); writ granted, 70 A.L.R.3d 475 .
  • Plunkett v. Plunkett 576 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Lunsford v. Lunsford 545 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Lozes v. Lozes 542 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Thompson v. Thompson 532 So. 2d 101 La. 1988
  • Christian v. Christian 535 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Peters v. Peters, supra ; Adams v. Adams, supra ; Plemer v. Plemer, supra .
  • Rollins v. Rollins 521 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Geisler v. Geisler 506 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Stephenson v. Stephenson, supra; (La:1980); Mar *1336 tinez v. Martínez, (La.App.
  • 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
    Fulco v. Fulco, supra; (La.
  • Dykes v. Dykes 488 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    1122 , (1971); and, (La.App.
  • Gras v. Gras 489 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Tweedel v. Tweedel 484 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Barton v. Minton 484 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Juckett v. Woods 469 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Anderson v. Anderson 469 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Regouffre v. Regouffre 467 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Clark v. Clark 467 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Fulco v. Fulco, supra; (La.
  • Cole v. Cole 467 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Hickman v. Hickman, supra; Peters v. Peters, supra; Adams v. Adams, supra; Plemer v. Plemer, supra.
  • Donaldson v. Keller 459 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra; Fulco v. Fulco, supra
  • Hickman v. Hickman 459 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Legrand v. Legrand 455 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • Lake v. Robertson 452 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    2nd Cir.1980) writ denied (1980)
  • Price v. Price 451 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Peters v. Peters 449 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Wickboldt v. Wickboldt 448 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Robicheaux v. Robicheaux 446 So. 2d 979 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984