DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Everett v. Everett, 433 So. 2d 705.

58 citing documents.

  • Schneider v. Schneider 115 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The only object is the best interest of the child.”
  • Mulkey v. Mulkey 108 So. 3d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    This standard reflects the long-held jurisprudential precept that “[sjtability and continuity must be considered in determining what is in the best interest of the child.” Ezell v. Kelley, supra at 456 .
  • Willard A. Harp v. Penny Darryl Penney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    However, I also note that in that opinion, this court also noted the supreme court’s that “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.” It appears to me that this latter statement is the impetus for the decision.
  • Melissa A. Porter v. Jeff D. Porter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    However, as recognized by our supreme court, “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Porter v. Porter 74 So. 3d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    However, as recognized by our supreme court, “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Bradley Griffith v. Resa Latiolais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    However, as recognized by our supreme court, “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Griffith v. Latiolais 70 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    However, as recognized by our supreme court, “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Bradley Griffith v. Resa Latiolais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    However, as recognized by our supreme court, “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Dustin Lemoine v. Jessica Rachel Brown Lemoine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    However, that fault addresses a separate cause of action before the court and, as our supreme court has recognized, “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Lemoine v. Lemoine 27 So. 3d 1062 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    However, that fault addresses a separate cause of action before the court and, as our supreme court has recognized, “[a]n award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior.”
  • Palazzolo v. Mire 10 So. 3d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Richardson v. Richardson 974 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • Schuchmann v. Schuchmann 768 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Nail v. Clavier 745 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Scott v. Scott 665 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Matter of Tuccio 665 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Blackledge v. Blackledge 652 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Percle v. Noll 634 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Warren v. Warren 617 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Smith v. Smith 615 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Fuge v. Uiterwyk 613 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Stanley v. Stanley 592 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Schloegel v. Schloegel 584 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Pittman v. Jones, supra ; (La.
  • Lindner v. Lindner 569 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Milligan v. Milligan, 559 So.2d at 8 ; Meredith v. Meredith, 521 So.2d at 796 ; (La.App.
  • Milligan v. Milligan 559 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Meredith v. Meredith, supra; (La.App.
  • Waits v. Waits 556 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Merritt v. Merritt 550 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Lunsford v. Lunsford 545 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Bauchmoyer v. Spelta 548 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Bishop v. Nelson 544 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    5th Cir.1987) *1322 writ denied
  • Ezell v. Kelley 535 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Bailey v. Bailey 527 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Dungan v. Dungan, supra .
  • Thomas v. Thomas 519 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Cassidy v. Cassidy 514 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Ezell v. Kelley 513 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Risher v. Risher 511 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Bridgers v. Bridgers 509 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • 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.
  • Boudreaux v. Boudreaux 503 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Daugherty v. Cromwell 501 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Head v. Head 500 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Even if the court could terminate a plan on its own motion, we find that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in doing so in the instant case in light of the recent supreme court decision in Bergeron, 492 So.2d at 1194, 1203
  • Hoffpauir v. Hoffpauir 498 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Goodman v. Goodman 496 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    our Supreme Court said: “The best interest of the child is the sole criterion in a change of custody case.
  • Vidrine v. Vidrine 497 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Dungan v. Dungan 499 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Hull v. Hull 499 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Albarado v. Toler 495 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Cleeton v. Cleeton, supra; Clark v. Clark, supra.
  • Godchaux v. Hawvermale 488 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Key v. Willard 488 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Reynaud v. Reynaud 484 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986