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.

  • Lamp v. Lamp 833 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    However, after an initial considered decree
  • Hillman v. Davis 834 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    the supreme court established a heavy burden for one attempting to modify a prior considered decree establishing a custodial relationship.
  • Sandoval v. Sandoval 832 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Francois v. Leon 834 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Accordingly, he contends that the trial court should have applied the less stringent "best interest of the child"
  • Alexander v. Alexander 831 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • McMahon v. McMahon 829 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    does not apply to change of custody in this matter.
  • Shambley v. Holmes 821 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • Hoskins v. Hoskins 814 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    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.
  • Newcomb v. Newcomb 810 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Lincecum v. Lincecum 812 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Jarrell v. Jarrell 811 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Earlene filed an exception of no cause of action
  • Decoux v. Decoux 815 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    ISSUE NO. 2 — in order to modify the considered decree of the February 25, 2000 custody hearing.
  • Doh v. Tlh 799 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    3 Cir. 3/15/95) ; , writ denied, 95-1488 (La.9/22/95); discussed the burden of proof when there has been a considered decree of custody: [T]he paramount consideration in any determination of child custody is the best interest of the child.
  • Amin v. Bakhaty 798 So. 2d 75 La. 2001
    see also Rashid, 824 S.W.2d at 502 (discussing the discretionary ground provided by the "reprehensible conduct" provision requires considering "the welfare of the child rather than the tactics of the parents").
  • Masters v. Masters 795 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Christy, however, argues that the best interests of the child standard does not apply because the latest custody decree was a considered decree
  • Dettman v. Rablee 809 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The trial court denied Mr. Rablee's request for a change of custody, however
  • Brown v. Brown 801 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Amin v. Bakhaty 812 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Derbigny v. Derbigny 785 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Comment (d) further states that the jurisprudential requirements of Bergeron v.. Bergeron, are applied to actions to change custody rendered in considered decrees.
  • Mills v. Wilkerson 785 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Hill v. Hill 777 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Plaisance v. Dept. of Social Services 777 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    the *642 Supreme Court imposed a heavy burden on a party attempting to persuade the court to change a "considered" degree in a custody case.
  • Richardson v. Richardson 774 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    After a status conference, the trial court found that Mr. Richardson’s rule would not meet the standard for a and continued the matter until July 30, 2000, ordering mediation and counseling for Peter Richardson.
  • Curtis v. Curtis 773 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Ellinwood v. Breaux, 32,730 (La.App.2d Cir.03/01/00), , citing
  • Shaffer v. Shaffer 808 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Evans, 708 So.2d at 738 , citing
  • Lee v. Lee 766 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Greg argued that the judgment of May 21, 1998 was a (La.
  • Washkow v. Washkow 765 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • In re Tutorship of M.A.H. 765 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    3d Cir.02/04/98), , in which the court concluded that where the nonparents previously had not been parties to the custody litigation, did not apply.
  • Bragg v. Horne 764 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    our Louisiana Supreme Court sought to stabilize the lives of our state's children by preventing custody transfers and re-transfers back and forth during their childhood.
  • Schuchmann v. Schuchmann 768 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Wilson v. Wilson, 30,445 (La.App.2d Cir.4/9/98), .
  • Franklin v. Franklin 763 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Masters v. Masters 756 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    In cases such as this one, where the original custody decree is a stipulated judgment and the rule of Bergeron v. Bergeron, [2] is inapplicable, the party seeking *1199 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.
  • Ellinwood v. Breaux 753 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • Polezcek v. Polezcek 752 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    [3] Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, pp. 12-13 (La.2/6/98)
  • In re Hardimon 751 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the court justified this standard of proof, stating that “it is desirable that there be an end of litigation and undesirable to change the child’s established mode of living except for imperative reasons.” Based on the Bergeron rationale, the second circuit has held that this standard of proof also ap
  • Perkins v. Perkins 747 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Roberie v. Roberie 749 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Aeb v. Jbe 752 So. 2d 756 La. 1999
    The court of appeal reversed, that leaving JE in his mother's home where he had lived all his life was so deleterious that modifying the custody decree was necessary.
  • Bracy v. Bracy 743 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    However, after an initial considered decree, i.e., the concern for terminating repeated litigation and continuing a child in an established living environment.
  • McGee v. McGee 745 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    See La.Civ.Code art. 131; (La.App.
  • Nichols v. Nichols 747 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Crowson v. Crowson 742 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Kinler v. Kinler 743 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Zanco v. Zanco, 97-342 (La.App.
  • AEB v. JBE 741 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Based upon the mother’s remarriage, the introduction of BB into JE’s life and the “proven incidences of inappropriate sexual contact by BB upon [JE],” the trial court concluded that the father met the heavy burden of Bergeron v. Bergeron, |4 by showing a change of circumstances that materially affected JE’s welfare.
  • Miller v. Miller 743 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    In cases such as this one, where the original custody decree is a for the burden of proof 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.
  • Willis v. Duck 733 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    However, after an initial considered decree
  • Long v. Dossett 732 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    3 Cir.); , writ denied, 95-1488 (La.9/22/95)
  • Mire v. Mire 734 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    The trial judge in his reasons for judgment further ordered that this modification was a considered decree based on the consent judgment of December of 1990 and that any further modification shall necessitate a writ denied, (9/11/86), has been satisfied.
  • Charlie v. Mayeaux 737 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    (Bergeron vs. Bergeron, ).
  • Howze v. Howze 727 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998