Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Cole, 553 So. 2d 847.

51 citing documents.

Karen Cohen Kinnett Versus Jarred Brandon Kinnett La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services, in the Interest of A.L. v. Thomas Robert Lowrie 167 So. 3d 573 La. 2015
Marcus Miller v. Harold Thibeaux,lafayette Parish School Board and American Alternative Insurance Corporation 159 So. 3d 426 La. 2015
The defendants cite the following jurisprudence as additional authority for the contention that an allegation of a biological relationship by a father to his illegitimate child is not enough to constitute an avowal action and that a father must also allege that he had maintained an “actual relationship” with his child: Parker v. Buteau, 99-519 (La.App.
State, Department of Social Services ex rel. P. B. v. Reed 52 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
This filiation proceeding does not illegitimate the child, but rather establishes both the child’s legal and biological father, which is referred to as “dual paternity.”
Craig A. Hebert v. Lawrence W. Blanchette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Hebert v. Blanchette 2 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
J.M.Y. v. R.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
(La.1989), this court held that the failure of the husband of the mother of the child to exercise his right to disavow paternity timely established the child as his legal and legitimate child.
Jmy v. Rr 1 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
this court held that the failure of the husband of the mother of the child to exercise his right to disavow paternity timely established the child as his legal and legitimate child.
J.M.Y. v. R.R. 1 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
this court held that the failure of the husband of the mother of the child to exercise his right to disavow paternity timely established the child as his legal and legitimate child.
Wrm v. Hcv 951 So. 2d 172 La. 2007
State ex rel. Department of Social Services v. Howard 898 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Howard 898 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Brandon J. Mouret v. Roxsan Godeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Mouret v. Godeaux 886 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Gallo v. Gallo 861 So. 2d 168 La. 2003
(La.1989), this court held that the failure of the husband of the mother of the child to exercise his right to disavow paternity timely established the child as his legal and legitimate child.
State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Wilson 855 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
YOLANDA v. Robert 775 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
the supreme court said: Through the presumption of Article 184, which extends to all children born or conceived during the marriage, and the expiration of the peremptive period of Civil Code art. 189, Donel is conclusively presumed to be Smith's legitimate offspring.
Jones v. Rodrigue 771 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Specifically, the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the duty of a biological father in instances where another person also claims paternity: *280 The presumed father's acceptance of paternal responsibilities, either by intent or default, does not enure to the benefit of the biological father.
Mason v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 769 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
5th Cir. 1989); affirmed , (La.1989).
State, Department of Social Services, Office of Family Support ex rel. Munson v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Williams, supra.
STATE, DEPT. OF SOC. SERV. v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Williams, supra .
Bolden v. Rodgers 746 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Modisette v. Phillips 736 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
T.D. v. M.M.M. 730 So. 2d 873 La. 1999
3 Cir.), writ den., (La.
Td v. Mmm 730 So. 2d 873 La. 1999
3 Cir.), writ den., (La.
Mata v. Mata 712 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
M.M.M v. M.M.M. 703 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
( for an excellent discussion of the evolution of the concept of dual paternity in Louisiana law.)
Demery v. Housing Auth. of New Orleans 689 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Geen v. Geen 666 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Smith v. Dison 662 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
In support he relies on *94
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Smith 657 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Guichard 655 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Ebey v. Harvill 647 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
concerned only a biological father's exception of no cause of action and did not address whether the legal father must be joined.
Putnam v. Mayeaux 645 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
the court indicated that biological fathers who meet certain prerequisites have a right of avowal despite the presumption in LSA-C.C.
Venture v. Transportation Underwriters 634 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
art. 927; Robinson v. North American Royalties, Inc.
State, Department of Social Services v. Shano 631 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
The only relevance it may have is if another person alleged to be the biological father can be brought into the support case, since a
Collins v. Collins 629 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 927(4), (5); (5th Cir.1989); affirmed
Barrie v. VP Exterminators, Inc. 625 So. 2d 1007 La. 1993
art. 927; Robinson v. North American Royalties, Inc.
Guillory v. GUILLORY EX REL. ARCENEAUX 615 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Russell v. Guillory 617 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
5 Cir.1989); affirmed (La.
Touzet v. Mobley 612 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Doe v. Entergy Services, Inc. 608 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
STATE, DSS v. Williams 605 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State, Department of Social Services, Office of Family Support ex rel. Smith v. Williams 605 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Gnagie v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 603 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Lewis v. Aluminum Co. of America 588 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State in Interest of Lawrence v. Harrell 582 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Cortez v. TOTAL TRANSPORTATION INC. 577 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
5 Cir.1989); affirmed (La.
Smith v. Jones 566 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
See Griffin v. Succession of Branch, 479 So.2d at 327
Lamana v. LeBlanc 558 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990