DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So. 2d 1193.

506 citing documents.

  • O'Neal v. Addis 256 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    Bergeron v. Bergeron , (La.
  • England v. England 251 So. 3d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    4 Cir. 2/13/08), , 1121 ( , 1196 (La.
  • In Re: L.M.M., Jr., a Minor La. 2018
    Kodie argues that the same situation occurs here and that the statutory criteria for modifying a guardianship, (La.
  • Miller v. Dicherry 251 So. 3d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Ronda Maxwell Hudson v. Clint Tucker Strother La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • Hudson v. Strother 246 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Bergeron v. Bergeron , , 1200 (La.1986) (referencing Bankston v. Bankston , (La.App.
  • Mercer v. Mercer 249 So. 3d 924 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    Prior to the close of the evidence, Plaintiff raised an exception of no right of action and claimed that Defendant's evidence did not meet the standard set forth in Bergeron v. Bergeron , (La.
  • Panaro v. Hoskin 239 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Bergeron v. Bergeron , , 1196 ; See also AEB v. JBE , 99-2668, p. 7 (La.
  • England v. England 238 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Carol J. Aymond, Jr. v. Valentina Aymond La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    Mr. Aymond argues that the records reflected Ms. Aymond’s to prove his claim for change of custody.
  • Aymond v. Aymond 238 So. 3d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Mr. Aymond argues that the records reflected Ms. Aymond's mental health history and were important insofar as he was required to satisfy the standard of Bergeron v. Bergeron , to prove his claim for change of custody.
  • In re J.R. 237 So. 3d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Bergeron v. Bergeron , , 1196 (La.
  • State in the Interest of L. F. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    The supreme court observed that a child’s best interest and welfare “may be irreparably damaged not only by a mistaken change in custody but also by the effects of an attempted or threatened change of custody on grounds that are less than imperative.”
  • Lowe v. Lowe 244 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    Bergeron v. Bergeron , (La.
  • Lucky v. Way 245 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    She argues that because William sought a change in a considered decree of child custody, the trial court was required to adhere to the factors set forth in Bergeron v. Bergeron , (La.
  • Freeman v. Johnson 225 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • Misty Luneau Noland v. Ryan Michael Noland La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    Therefore, based upon the Written Reasons for Judgment and the official minutes of the Court, the Court finds the previous hearing is a considered decree and therefore, the petitioner, Ryan Noland, (La.
  • Atkinson v. Atkinson 212 So. 3d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Mable Dowden, Et Ux. v. Cassie Catts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • Tinsley v. Tinsley 211 So. 3d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Jaligam v. Pochampally 206 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Daniel Prather v. Mercedes McLaughlin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    “[T]he jurisprudential requirements of Bergeron v. Bergeron[, (La.
  • Prather v. McLaughlin 207 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[T]he jurisprudential requirements of Bergeron v. Bergeron[, (La.
  • George Mason, Jr. v. Deanna Harbison Mason La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    Additionally, (emphasis added), wherein the supreme court stated that the party requesting modification is “required to show that a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child has occurred since the prior order respecting custody.” This requirement “protects [the complainant’s]
  • Mason v. Mason 203 So. 3d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Additionally, *524 (emphasis added), wherein the supreme court stated that the party requesting modification is “required to show that a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child has occurred since the prior order respecting custody.” This requirement “protects [the complainant’s] adversary an
  • Dazet v. Price 202 So. 3d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    LAW AND DISCUSSION: Exception of No Cause of Action In his first assignment of error, Mr. Dazat argues that the trial court erred in denying his Exception of No Cause of Action, claiming that Ms. Bedi’s
  • Koussanta v. Dozier 196 So. 3d 60 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
    On July 11, 2013, Ms. Dozier filed an exception of no cause of action, asserting that none of the allegations contained in Mr. Koussanta’s motion constituted a change in circumstances sufficient to meet the heavy burden imposed on him under []
  • Lawrence v. Lawrence 197 So. 3d 198 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Tony responded by filing an exception of no cause of action asserting that Aimee’s rule did not sufficiently allege circumstances necessary to warrant a
  • Lowe v. Lowe 196 So. 3d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Semmes; supra; Slaughter, supra.
  • Alex Ardoin v. Jasmine Grice La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • Ardoin v. Grice 190 So. 3d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    See Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 13 (La.2/6/98)
  • Jeremy George, Et Ux. v. Robbie Dugas, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    Millet v. Andrasko, 93–0520, p[p].
  • George v. Dugas 188 So. 3d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    *383 Millet v. Andrasko, 93-0520, p[p], 5-6 (La.App.
  • Coleman v. Manley 188 So. 3d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    However, the record is devoid of any evidence or allegation that Ms. Coleman ever abused alco-hoi or illegal drugs or that such substance abuse was an issue in this case
  • Tracie F. v. Francisco D. 188 So. 3d 231 La. 2016
  • Bonnette v. Bonnette 185 So. 3d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    This additional burden is imposed because our courts have recognized that a child “may be irreparably damaged not only by a mistaken change in custody but also by the effects of an attempted dr threatened change of custody on grounds that are less than imperative.” see also, Schmidt, 2008-263 at p. 11, 6 So.3d at 205 .
  • Christopher Cloud v. Emily Dean La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    On July 31, 2015, Dean responded by filing an exception of no cause of action, asserting that Cloud’s rule and amended rule did not sufficiently allege circumstances necessary to warrant a
  • Cloud v. Dean 184 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    On July 31, 2015, Dean responded by filing an exception of no cause of action, asserting that Cloud’s rule and amended rule did not sufficiently allege circumstances necessary to warrant a
  • Hilkirk v. Johnson 183 So. 3d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Marvis Melvin v. Kimberly Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    In performing a de novo review, we first note that the litigants agree that the June 18, 2012 joint custody judgment was not a “considered decree” subject to the “heavy burden”
  • Rozetta Mizell v. Juston Stone La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    8 When no evidence is adduced at the district court level prior to the entry of the joint custody order which is sought to be modified, that joint custody decree is not a “considered decree” within the meaning of Bergeron [v. Bergeron, ].
  • Melvin v. Miller 181 So. 3d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    In performing a de novo review, we first note that the litigants agree that the June' 18, 2012 joint custody judgment was not a “considered decree” subject to the “heavy burden”
  • Mizell v. Stone 181 So. 3d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    f permanent custody the party seeking a change bears a heavy burden of' proving that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of proving by clear and convincing evidence- that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.”
  • Jupiter v. Jupiter 183 So. 3d 492 La. 2015
    The relator “bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.”
  • Tracie F. v. Francisco D. 174 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
  • Kirsch v. Kirsch 180 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Joshua Amos v. Shawana Semien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • Margaret Kendrick v. Jody Kendrick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    I. Assignment of Error 1: Applicable Burden of Proof Margaret first contends that the prior default judgment designating her as the “primary custodial parent” was a considered decree, and that the trial court erred by failing to apply the heavy burden of proof applicable to considered custody 3 1.
  • Distefano v. Distefano 169 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    see also Mulkey v. Mulkey, 2012-2709 (La.5/7/13), -365 .
  • Manno v. Manno 154 So. 3d 655 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    In cases where the original custody decree is a is inapplicable, the party 114seeking modification must prove: (1) that there has been a material change of circumstances since the original custody decree was entered, and (2) that the proposed modification is in the best interest of the child.