DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • Sherman v. Sherman 441 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    where the paramour of the mother who was awarded custody maintained a separate residence and only occasionally stayed overnight with Mrs. Cleeton.
  • Benoit v. Benoit 436 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Granger v. Ortego 434 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Everett v. Everett 433 So. 2d 705 La. 1983
  • Williams v. Williams 431 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The significance of a mother’s
  • Stewart v. Stewart 430 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Marlatt v. Marlatt 427 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Murphy v. Murphy 427 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Pauley v. Pauley 425 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Crooks v. Crooks 425 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Griffin v. Griffin 424 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Seymour v. Seymour 423 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Cleeton v. Cleeton, on rehearing
  • Parker v. Parker 424 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Ohman v. Ohman 422 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Wallace v. Wallace 420 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Jaubert v. Conforto 420 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra
  • Hill v. Hill 421 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    (on rehearing, La.1980); Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra
  • Faust v. Faust 421 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Gutierrez v. Tilghman 420 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Babin v. Babin 417 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    on rehearing; Camelo, supra; Traylor, supra.
  • Dardar v. Dardar 417 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Montelbano v. Montelbano 415 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra
  • Cooley v. Cooley 411 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Duplantis v. Monteaux 412 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    [4] Accord: where 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; Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La.
  • Theriot v. Huval 413 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Cleeton v. Cleeton, on rehearing
  • Leckie v. Leckie 415 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Quinn v. Quinn 412 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Johnston v. McCullough 410 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
    a change of custody was sought because the mother, who had custody of three minor daughters, was conducting an adulterous relationship.
  • 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
  • Hord v. Hord 407 So. 2d 1314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Noblit v. Noblit 407 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    is pertinent: `To change the custody of these girls would punish their mother for past behavior when there is no proof of a detrimental effect on her daughters.
  • Bonner v. Bonner 408 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Fulco; Monsour, supra; writs denied
  • 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
    Appellant further urges the instant case is factually indistinguishable from, and controlled by, where custody of the children was granted to the mother.
  • Stephenson v. Stephenson 404 So. 2d 963 La. 1981
  • Tusson v. Price 403 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    1980, , and the sole criterion for determining custody (and, we add, visitation) is the best interest of the child, Bordelon v. Bordelon, La.1980, .
  • Camelo v. Camelo 402 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra; , on rehearing, (La.
  • Johnston v. McCullough 401 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Moreau v. Moreau 400 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Ferguson v. Ferguson 398 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Cooper v. Cooper 398 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Lawson v. Lawson 396 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra; (La.
  • Hadley v. Hadley 394 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • 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
    he children’s sake after it has applied correct principles of law, a reviewing court should disturb such custody determination only where there is a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the matter, even though reasonable minds might differ as to the children’s best interest under the variant circumstances suggested by a particular record.” , (La.1980).
  • Manley v. Manley 389 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    1122 , (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.
  • Fouchi v. Fouchi 391 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Mobley v. Mobley 393 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    The two specifications of error raised by the relatrix involve essentially the same question, whether the trial court properly applied the ruling of a recent Supreme Court case on rehearing
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 390 So. 2d 1325 La. 1980