Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Turner v. Turner, 455 So. 2d 1374.

116 citing documents.

Gwendolyn Diamond v. Decarrious Byrcious Jenkins La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Devan Simpson v. Joshua Jagneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
Timothy Buckner v. Tiffany Chardae Berry La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
Christopher McWhorter v. Kassie Gill La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
Andrew Taylor Smith v. Angelica Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
v. L.M.C., 14-1119 (La.10/15/14)
Caleb James Simmons v. Ashley Nikole Hodges La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
v. L.M.C., 14– 1119 (La.10/15/14)
Faye Harvey & Nelford Harvey v. Laramie D. Harper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
v. L.M.C., 14–1119 (La.10/15/14), quoting 9
Jesse Johnson v. Maranda Crader La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Krystal Szalajeski v. Kenneth Szalajeski La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
3d 16, 28 ( - 1379 ( La.
Jamie Killian Coody v. John Allen Coody La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Benny Council v. Tameka Collins Livingston La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
because such retention conflicts with Bergeron’s requirement of a change in circumstances and its policy of avoiding repetitive litigation” and commenting that “[t]his approach is perhaps too restrictive, failing to consider the trial court's duty to act as a (La.
Lepine v. Lepine 223 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Neathery v. Neathery 216 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Jaligam v. Pochampally 206 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Daryl Dwayne Thomas v. Johnda Rochelle Ardoin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
v. L.M.C., 14-1119 (La.10/15/14)
Justin Hodges v. Amy Hodges 181 So. 3d 700 La. 2015
v. L.M.C., 14-1119 (La.10/15/14)
C.M.J. v. L.M.C., Wife of C.M.J. 156 So. 3d 16 La. 2014
Danette Williams McManus v. Bryan Keith McManus La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
the supreme court stated: The trial judge sits as a sort of fiduciary on behalf of the child, and must pursue actively that course of conduct which will be of the greatest benefit to the child.
McManus v. McManus 127 So. 3d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
the supreme court stated: The trial judge sits as a sort of fiduciary on behalf of the child, and must pursue actively that course of conduct which will be of the greatest benefit to the child.
Caples v. Caples 103 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Turner v. Turner, 84-0557 (La.1984), .
Jones v. LSU/EA CONWAY MEDICAL CENTER 46 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
When these appear, presumptions disappear.” Whiting v. Aadvance Insulation Services, supra.
Bradley Griffith v. Resa Latiolais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Griffith v. Latiolais 32 So. 3d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Smith v. Smith 977 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Abate v. City of Abbeville 827 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Shaffer v. Shaffer 808 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Folse v. Folse 738 So. 2d 1040 La. 1999
The court further reasoned that excluding the hearsay evidence "would violate this court's duty to protect the best interest of this child,"
Whiting v. Aadvance Insulation Services 738 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
In Re Leitch 732 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Bercegeay v. Bercegeay 689 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
1377 n. 2 (La.1984); See also La.
Long v. Long 684 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Hawthorne v. Hawthorne 676 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
(court allowed, even obligated, to consider additional factor of inability of parents to get along)....
Franks v. Air Conditioning Appliance Corp. 670 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of what evidence is sufficient for a party to rebut a : As in any matter in which there is a rebuttable presumption, the burden rests with the party challenging the presumption to convince the fact-finder that his proposed conclusion is more correct than the presumed one.
Geen v. Geen 666 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
where the trial court considered the fact that the parents were unable to get along with each other.
Merhige v. Gubbles 657 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Attaway v. City of Natchitoches 651 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Brazan v. Brazan 638 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Matthews v. Matthews 633 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 131(A)(2); Lindner v. Lindner, 569 So.2d at 175 .
Wyatt v. White 626 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Yelverton v. Yelverton 621 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
The court acknowledged the presumption of joint custody in Civil Code article 131, but found it was not appropriate here because art. 131 C(2)(j) requires both parents to be willing and able to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent; requires the parties to cooperate in any joint custody plan.
Smith v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety 620 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
the court discussed the effect of a rebuttable presumption as follows: As in any matter in which there is a rebuttable presumption, the burden rests with the party challenging the presumption to convince the fact-finder that his proposed conclusion is more correct than the presumed one.
Rivet v. LeBlanc 600 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
the court discussed the effect of a rebuttable presumption as follows: As in any matter in which there is a rebuttable presumption, the burden rests with the party challenging the presumption *1368 to convince the fact-finder that his proposed conclusion is more correct than the presumed one.
Chandler v. Grass 600 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Benson v. Benson 597 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Hicks v. Hicks 594 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies 569 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Lindner v. Lindner 569 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Edwards v. Edwards 556 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Waits v. Waits 556 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Simmons v. Simmons 554 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
the Supreme Court at page 1379 stated: "...