DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Prevost v. Prevost 729 So. 2d 582 La. 1998
    Pretermitting the question of whether the June 1997 judgment was a the trial court made a finding of fact that a change of custody was warranted under Ber-geron, since relator proved 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.
  • Fowler v. Fowler 722 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    However, we note that after the trial judge employed the proper analysis and concluded that Robert had not met his burden of proof, (La.
  • Kyle v. Leeth 727 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Raney v. Wren 722 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Kuhl v. Kuhl 715 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Evans v. Lites 714 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Shaw v. Shaw 714 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Morrow v. Morrow 713 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Voelkel v. Voelkel 712 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    ent custody, the party seeking a change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is “so deletious (sic) 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 the change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.” , 1200 , (La.1986), reh’g denied (Sept.
  • Wilson v. Wilson 714 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Gould v. Gould, 28,996 (La.
  • Day v. Day 711 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The original joint custody plan was by stipulation judgment, and not a considered decree, thus the "heavy burden" does not apply.
  • White v. Fetzer 707 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    The joint custody plan included a provision that stipulated the plan was to be treated as a considered decree, (La.
  • Evans v. Lungrin 708 So. 2d 731 La. 1998
  • Kroics v. Kroics 705 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Modified a considered decree, (La.
  • Stewart v. Stewart 705 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • In the Matter of Landrum 704 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Millet v. Andrasko, 93-0520, p. 5-6 (La.App.
  • Zanco v. Zanco 703 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • Hebert v. Blanchard 702 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Havener v. Havener 700 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Hargrove v. Hargrove 694 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Duvalle v. Duvalle, 27,271 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/23/95), .
  • Welborne v. Welborne 694 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Robert v. Gaudet 691 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Millet v. Andrasko, 93-0520, p. 5-6 (La.App.
  • Acklin v. Acklin 690 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    The father countered with a peremptory exception of no cause of action, maintaining that the allegations did not assert a (La.
  • Gould v. Gould 687 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    The substance of the argument is that Dr. Jones's testimony satisfied the plaintiff's burden of proving changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a
  • Powell v. Powell 684 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Long v. Long 684 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Tennessee v. Campbell 682 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    However, after an initial considered decree
  • Freeland v. Pierce 679 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Discussion In her third assignment, upon a party seeking modification of a considered custody decree.
  • Davenport v. Manning 675 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    The trial court found that Mr. Manning had failed to carry the burden for modification of a
  • Oliver v. Oliver 671 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Regina appeals, asserting that the trial judge erred in: (1) applying the "heavy burden" to the facts of this case; (2) finding that the existing custody arrangement is not deleterious to Thomas; (3) finding that the existing custody arrangement has worked well; (4) placing undue emphasis on Thomas' preference; (5) relying on the testimony of Dr. Brenda Roberts, Ph.D., the father's expert when h
  • Pendergrass v. Pendergrass 667 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Bergeron v. *1217 Bergeron
  • Geen v. Geen 666 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Scott v. Scott 665 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Warlick v. Warlick 661 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Duvalle v. Duvalle 660 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    the supreme court stated that in a case involving a modification of a considered decree of permanent custody, the burden of proof for the petitioning party is to show that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child so as to justify the modification, or that the harm likely to be
  • Darnall v. Darnall 657 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Bennett v. Bennett 657 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Bergeron v. Bergeron [ ], supra, and the cases cited therein.
  • Fuge v. Uiterwyk 653 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Hensgens v. Hensgens 653 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • DeSoto v. DeSoto 651 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    and in the alternative, that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proving a change of circumstances as set forth in Bergeron, supra.
  • Sparks v. Sparks 649 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE Cheryl claims that Patrick did not demonstrate a change in circumstances which materially affected the welfare of the children sufficient to justify a change in circumstances
  • Simmons v. Simmons 649 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Art. 131 (as reenacted); (La.App.
  • Parker v. Parker 648 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Haik v. Haik 648 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • Kiefer v. Yellon 646 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Connelly v. Connelly 644 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Oglesby v. Oglesby 641 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Fountain v. Waguespack 639 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Ms. Waguespack specifies as error: 1) denial of the venue exception; 2) allowing Mr. Fountain to relitigate custody without showing a *884 3) holding her to the Bergeron standard and denying her primary custody.
  • Barnes v. Cason 637 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Noe v. Noe 640 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    JUDGMENT OF JULY 12, 199S As to the judgment of July 12,1993, appellant argues that the trial court erred: (1) to the case sub judice; (2) in finding the judgment of April 122, 1990, a “considered decree”; (3) in failing to find a change of circumstances sufficient to award custody to appellant; (4) in failing to allow evidence as to inappropriate sexual behavior in appellees’ family; and (5) in failing to find that