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.

  • Percle v. Noll 634 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Johnson v. Johnson 634 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    known as the “heavy-burden rule,” in order to justify a change in custody of the minor child.
  • Millet v. Andrasko 640 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    addresses the burdens of proof in cases involving a determination or a modification of child custody between parents.
  • Ard v. Ard 628 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Matthews v. Matthews 633 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Yelverton v. Yelverton 621 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Kleiser v. Kleiser 619 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a party seeking a modification of a considered decree of permanent custody bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custodial arrangements is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of proving by cle
  • Goodwin v. Goodwin 618 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    does not apply to consent decrees, she contends appellee did not prove that a change in circumstances had occurred since the original decree because the evidence shows she was acting this way before that decree.
  • Joiner v. Joiner 619 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    The original custody decree in the case sub judice was a “considered decree.” Therefore, is applicable.
  • Smith v. Smith 615 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Schultz v. Elremmash 615 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • Ponze v. Ponze 614 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    The Court also relies on the recommendations of Dr. Elliott Levine (sic), the Social Worker employed by the district court in domestic matters.”
  • Peyton v. Peyton 614 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    is not applicable to the matter sub judice.
  • Becker v. Becker 613 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State, in Interest of Cg 609 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    However, following an initial considered decree, (La.
  • Odom v. Odom 606 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Sheppard v. Hood 605 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Schubert v. Schubert 605 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Norris v. Norris 604 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Action of the trial court By written reasons of May 21, 1991, the court reviewed the procedural stance of the case and found that the original judgment of joint custody (January 10, 1990) was not a
  • Guillory v. Guillory 602 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Chandler v. Grass 600 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Beard v. Beard 599 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Benson v. Benson 597 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • Germany v. Germany 599 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Hicks v. Hicks 594 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • Ledet v. Mitchell 591 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    in order to obtain a change in custody.
  • Montgomery v. Marcantel 591 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Stanley v. Stanley 592 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Monteleone v. Monteleone 591 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    the court found David failed to prove that a change of circumstances, materially affecting Christina's well-being, had occurred since the signing of the consent judgment.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 590 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Because we find that the mother stated a we reverse the judgment sustaining the exception and remand the matter for further proceedings.
  • Pulley v. Pulley 587 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Lee v. Davis 579 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Kean v. Kean 577 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    The appellant argues that the agreement should have been given more weight than that given a Louisiana agreement and that appellee should have been subject to a "heavy burden" of showing a change of circumstances or necessitous reason to modify the agreement instead of the distinction drawn between a voluntary agreement and a
  • Rogers v. Rogers 577 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    [1] the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the applicable burden of proof in matters concerning modification of custody decrees.
  • Plunkett v. Plunkett 576 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    She advances two arguments: (1) The trial court erred in applying the "heavy burden" to this case, which did not involve a prior considered decree of permanent custody; and (2) The trial court erred in restricting the evidence, insofar as it pertained to custody, to events that occurred after a prior custody rule was tried.
  • Kimble v. Kimble 576 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    the Supreme Court set forth the following burden of proof rule for custody modification cases: When a trial court has made a considered decree of 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 jus
  • Utz v. Kienzle 574 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    of proving either that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the children 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 the advantages to the
  • Tolar v. Tolar 569 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Lindner v. Lindner 569 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Hillidge v. McFarland 566 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Defendant-in-rule, the mother, now appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in not regarding the custody judgment rendered on July 19, 1988 as a considered decree which required plaintiff-in-rule later to meet the "heavy" (La.
  • Jackson v. Jackson 573 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Palazzo v. Coe 562 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    The Trial Court denied Dr. Palazzo's request to modify custody stating that she failed to meet both the material change of circumstances and the heavy burden of proof requirements
  • Matherne v. Matherne 562 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the Supreme Court mandated that a party seeking the change bears a heavy burden which also includes proof that continuation of the present custody is so dileterious to the child as to justify the modification.
  • Favaloro v. Cooper 562 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    Appellant urges that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the prior custody decree, because Mrs. Favaloro failed to show a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child, and failed to carry the heavy burden of proving that continuation of the prior decree was detrimental to the child
  • Myers v. Myers 561 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Smith v. Smith 559 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Parker v. Parker 559 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    sets forth the correct, more stringent standard, which necessarily requires a reversal when applied to the facts of this case.
  • Milligan v. Milligan 559 So. 2d 6 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