Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bagents v. Bagents, 419 So. 2d 460.

85 citing documents.

State In re of Love 535 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Dubois v. Dubois 532 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
McLellan v. Leche 531 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
****** “[T]his court’s function is not to substitute its collective decision for that of the trial court, but to review the decision for error of law.”
State in Interest of Sylvester 525 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Aldrich v. Aldrich 505 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Gordy v. Langner 502 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Albarado v. Toler 495 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Marionneaux v. Marionneaux 494 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Gilchrist v. Gilchrist 492 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Lions v. Lions 488 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Berzins v. Betts, supra.
Ferry v. Ferry 482 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Carroll v. Carroll 476 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Sepulvado v. Sepulvado 474 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Guerra v. Serpas 466 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
as follows: “In performing its function of deciding custody cases, the trial court is vested with a vast amount of discretion.
Johnson on Behalf of Johnson v. Earls 464 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bishop v. Bishop 457 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Berzins v. Betts 457 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Lake v. Robertson 452 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Price v. Price 451 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
-463 (La.1982) appears the following: In performing its function of deciding custody cases, the trial court is vested with a vast amount of discretion.
Peters v. Peters 449 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Kincaide v. Kincaide 444 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Sherman v. Sherman 441 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
the trial court had denied a mother custody of her five year old daughter.
Wade v. Wade 434 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Fortenberry v. Fortenberry 432 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Ferry v. Ferry 433 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Stewart v. Stewart 430 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Kessler v. Spohrer 428 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Marlatt v. Marlatt 427 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Walton v. Deblieux 428 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Murphy v. Murphy 427 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
In a later case, the court held: "The principal consideration in every child custody case is the best interest and welfare of the child ...
Gilmore v. Williams 424 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
e concluded that Nicole’s best interest would be served by changing her custody from her mother to her father who was “willing and able to provide for her with a Christian home, a stable environment, and a loving home.” The trial judge correctly recognized that the proper test to be applied in contests of this nature is “the best interest of the child.” La.Civil Code Art. 157
Cotton v. Holden 422 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
We do this, : “In performing its function of deciding custody cases, the trial court is vested with a vast amount of discretion.
Sims v. Sims 422 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
(1982): "In performing its function of deciding custody cases, the trial court is vested with a vast amount of discretion.
Tabor v. Tabor 421 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
a 4-3 decision by our highest court.
Vincent v. Vincent 420 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(No. 82-C-0183, September 7, 1982).