DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Revere v. Revere, 389 So. 2d 1277.

44 citing documents.

  • Hiser v. Fell 153 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
  • Candace Rae Marsalis v. James Frank Marsalis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    5 The concept of a uniform child custody jurisdiction law “was proposed in an effort to have states impose uniform legislative rules on themselves regarding jurisdiction in child custody cases.”
  • Shannon Cramer v. Mark Tuttle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    at 82 (citing Revere [v. Revere, -80 (La.1980)].
  • Cramer v. Tuttle 11 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    at 82 (citing Revere [v. Revere, -80 (La.1980)]).
  • State ex rel. J.W. 975 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • Martin-Creech v. Armstrong 965 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • Winston v. Millaud 930 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    the court addressed the "significant connection standard" under La.
  • In Re SLG 920 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    -79 (La.1980), citing New York ex rel.
  • In the Interest of the Minor Children, S.L.G. 920 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    -79 (La.1980), citing New York ex rel.
  • Stelluto v. Stelluto 914 So. 2d 34 La. 2005
    Stat. 13:1700(A); (discussing the UCCJL's purposes).
  • Sisk v. Sisk 902 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    5th Cir.1982), writ denied, 1 2
  • Stelluto v. Stelluto 894 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    the court addressed the "significant connection standard" under La.
  • State ex rel. D.R.P. 862 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    The home state is automatically given jurisdiction because theoretically, “the court of the home state is in the best position for evidence gathering and for exercising continuity of control so that when the home state has jurisdiction, courts of other states should generally defer to and cooperate with that jurisdiction.”
  • State Ex Rel. Drp 862 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • Cancienne v. Cancienne 831 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Edgeworth v. Edgeworth, supra at 715.
  • Amin v. Bakhaty 798 So. 2d 75 La. 2001
    : The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law was proposed in an effort to have states impose uniform legislative rules on themselves regarding jurisdiction in child custody cases.
  • Bradford v. Bradford 772 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Anton v. Anton, 97-0792 (La.App.
  • Jurado v. Brashear 764 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    sed by the National Conference of Commissioners "[i]n order to provide some stability to reasoned custody decrees by discouraging relitigation, to deter custody determinations by physical abduction, to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflicting custody decrees in several states, and primarily to attain the security of home environment necessary for a child's well being[.]"
  • Hero v. Hero 714 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Edgeworth v. Edgeworth 712 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Devillier v. Smith, 950846 (La.App.
  • Whittenberg v. Whittenberg 710 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Anton v. Anton 694 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Devillier v. Smith 665 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Lopez v. Lopez 661 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Broadway v. Broadway 623 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Parker v. Castillo 610 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    : A custody decree in one state is subject to modification not only by the courts of that state, but also by the courts of another state, since the Full, Faith and Credit Clause has limited application in custody cases.
  • Tabuchi v. Lingo 588 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Renno v. Evans 580 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Kean v. Kean 577 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    to find that Louisiana had jurisdiction to determine custody.
  • Gray v. Gray 572 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
  • Lee v. Lee 545 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Martin v. Martin 545 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Fuge v. Uiterwyk 542 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Stuart v. Stuart 516 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Pool v. Luley 508 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Counts v. Bracken 494 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Snider v. Snider 474 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    the significant connection standard is more flexible than the home state standard.
  • St. Andrie v. St. Andrie 473 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    : "Under the statutory scheme a Louisiana court competent to adjudicate child custody has jurisdiction to render initial decrees or modifications in two principal situations: (1) when Louisiana is the child's home state [R.S.
  • Speights v. Rockwood 451 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Schroth v. Schroth 449 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Wachter v. Wachter 439 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Eicke v. Eicke 399 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    However, our Supreme Court explained the purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
  • Cata v. McKnight 401 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    App. 4th Cir. 1981); (La.
  • Hadley v. Hadley 394 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    under this statutory scheme, a competent Louisiana court has jurisdiction to determine custody or modify it in two principal situations: (1) when Louisiana is the child's home state, or (2) when the child and at least one contestant have a significant connection with Louisiana so that it is in the best inte