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.

  • Eric R. Cerwonka v. Joe D. Baker and Teresa Cothran Baker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Dr. Cerwonka argues that each of the previous judgments rendered by the trial court were considered decrees, had been met.
  • Cerwonka v. Baker 942 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Dr. Cerwonka argues that each of the previous judgments rendered by the trial court were considered decrees, had been met.
  • Veazie v. Fontenot 933 So. 2d 792 La. 2006
    I, In my opinion the mother, , (La.1986), for change of custody.
  • Michael Veazie v. Monica Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the standard to be used when a modification of a considered custody decree is sought.
  • Veazie v. Fontenot 931 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the standard to be used when a modification of a considered custody decree is sought.
  • Joplin v. Joplin 931 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • Amanda J. Stephens Merriman v. Timothy L. Merriman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Comment (d) are applied to actions to change custody rendered in considered decrees.
  • Merriman v. Merriman 930 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Comment (d) are applied to actions to change custody rendered in considered decrees.
  • Knowlton v. Knowlton 927 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    The party *644 seeking modification of a (La.
  • Leard v. Schenker 930 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    the Louisiana Supreme Court described the appellate review standard by stating that "upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight, and his discretion will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a clear showing of abuse."
  • Poole v. Poole 926 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In April 2005, the parties both filed rules to modify the March 2003 decree, and a question arose as to whether that decree was a (La.
  • McCready v. McCready 924 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • Richard Stacy Brown v. Leslie Lejean Wilson Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Brown v. Brown 925 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Luplow v. Luplow 924 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In cases where the original custody decree is a is inapplicable, the party seeking 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.
  • Leslie Moran Harris v. Jerry L. Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Ms. Jackson contends this standard, applies only to a change in physical custody.
  • Jackson v. Harris 918 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Ms. Jackson contends this standard, applies only to a change in physical custody.
  • Franklin v. Franklin 928 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Rao v. Rao 927 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    and Evans v. *392 Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Cedotal v. Cedotal 927 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Shaunn Caillier McCorvey v. Derriel Carlton McCorvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    ermanent 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.”
  • McCorvey v. McCorvey 916 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Colvin v. Colvin 914 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    In cases where the original custody decree is a is inapplicable, the party seeking 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.
  • Sanders v. Sanders 923 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    the trial court found that the split custody ordered in 2004 was not so deleterious that a change in custody was required in 2005.
  • Tara Coates Senousy v. Saeed Hassan Senousy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the supreme court articulated the standard to be used when a modification of a considered custody decree is sought.
  • Senousy v. Senousy 905 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the supreme court articulated the standard to be used when a modification of a considered custody decree is sought.
  • Riels v. Riels 905 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    In response, Mr. Riels filed an exception of no cause of action
  • Cain v. Cain 903 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    AEB v. JBE, supra ; Blackshire v. Washington, 39,028 (La.App.
  • Elliott v. Elliott 916 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Fernandez v. Pizzalato 902 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court described the appellate review standard by stating that "upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight, and his discretion will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a clear showing of abuse."
  • Adams v. Adams 899 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    STEWART, J. At issue in this child custody dispute is whether the parents are bound by a
  • Wages v. Wages 899 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    was inapplicable because the original custody judgment was stipulated and the matter of primary domiciliary custody had never been litigated.
  • Cherry v. Cherry 894 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    of April 16, 2001 was a "considered" judgment; (2) that Ms. Reilly had no evidence that would warrant a change in custody, i.e., nothing to show that the present custody arrangement was *1211 deleterious to the children's welfare or that the harm that might be caused by such a (3) that Ms. Reilly's visitation rights should be reduced; (4) that Ms. Reilly was in arrears in her child support payments; and (5) that Ms. Reilly's child support obligation should be increased.
  • Rebecca Lalonde Desoto v. Troy William Desoto La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    The judgment of divorce specifically provided that the judgment of November 2, 1993, “be recognized and maintained in this judgment.” This court, in a previous appeal, determined that the original judgment was a “considered decree” applies to requests to modify custody.
  • DeSoto v. DeSoto 893 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    This court, in a previous appeal, determined that the original judgment was a "considered decree" applies to requests to modify custody.
  • Pierre v. Pierre 898 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Millet v. Andrasko, 93-0520 (La.App.
  • Walker v. Walker 880 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Ellinwood v. Breaux, 32,730 (La.App.2d Cir.03/01/00), , citing
  • R.J. v. M.J. 880 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Rj v. Mj 880 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • D'Aquilla v. D'Aquilla 879 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR In his appeal, Mr. D'Aquilla asserts that: 1) Since his motion to change custody was based on a prior stipulated judgment, and not a considered custody decree, 2) The trial court erred in failing to reduce his child support obligation in proportion to the amount of time the children spend in his custody; 3) The trial court erred in awarding private school tuition; and 4) The trial court erred in failing to stay that portion of its judgment ordering him to pay priv
  • Ramona Ann Marcentel Winzor v. Robert Wade Winzor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    g a modification must prove that continuation of the present situation is “so deleterious 3 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.”
  • Winzor v. Winzor 856 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Mimms v. Brown 856 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    nent 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 In a modification of the custody decree,” or of proving by “clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by the change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.” reh’g denied (Sept.
  • White v. Kimrey 847 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Evans, supra; Evans v. Lites, 30,632 (La.App.2d Cir.06/24/98), .
  • Montalvo v. Montalvo 854 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    eceived evidence of parental fitness, the party seeking a modification must prove that continuation of the present situation 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.”
  • Trettin v. Trettin 839 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Such judgment is provisional only in the sense that custody may be altered later, after material changes in circumstances occur, as illustrated in cases such as Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), (La.
  • Flanagan v. Flanagan 839 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In cases where the original custody decree is a (La.
  • Major v. Major 849 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Aucoin v. Aucoin 834 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    3 Cir.); , writ denied, 95-1488 (La.9/22/95), , (La.
  • C.S.A. v. J.R.A. 834 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    ■ LAW AND ARGUMENT The rule for a