DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chatelain v. STATE, DOTD, 586 So. 2d 1373.

27 citing documents.

  • KHRISTY GOINS RISMILLER, TUTRIX FOR DANIEL EDWARDS GOINS VERSUS GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY Consolidated With DAVID WATTS VERSUS MARK … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    11/28/00), (emphasis in original) the Louisiana State Supreme Court, specifically addressed the question of “Who is a Child under 2315.2” (The rationale is even more applicable to article 2315.1.): In Chatelain[v. State, DOTD, (La.
  • Udomeh v. Joseph 103 So. 3d 343 La. 2012
    & Dev., this Court applied former La.
  • Shawn Gradney v. Louisiana Commercial Laundry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Gradney v. LOUISIANA COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY 38 So. 3d 1115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 2007-2432, p. 19 (La.5/21/08), ; Chatelain v. State, Department of Transportation & Development, Bonvillain v. Preferred Industries & LWCC, 2004-0849, p. 12 (La.App.
  • Mike Stoute v. Petroleum Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Stoute v. Petroleum Center 980 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Cls v. Gjs 953 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    In Chatelain v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the requisites for satisfying the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
  • HAWKINS-ROBERTSON v. Hessler 945 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • Gibbs v. Delatte 927 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    and Dev., Etcher v. Neumann, 2000-2282, p. 14 (La.
  • Talbot v. Talbot 864 So. 2d 590 La. 2003
    Lyons, 452 So.2d at 1165 ; Chatelain v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
  • Ashmore v. Hilton 834 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Etcher v. Neumann 806 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • McCray v. Delta Industries, Inc. 809 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Chatelain v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
  • Jenkins v. Mangano Corp. 774 So. 2d 101 La. 2000
    Civ.Code art. 209; Chatelain v. State, DOTD
  • Jenkins v. Long Term Care Managers, Inc. 758 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Bolden v. Rodgers 746 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    And Development, in which the court held that the clear and convincing standard of Art. 209 applies when a party attempts to prove an illegitimate child was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents under La.
  • O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 737 So. 2d 31 La. 1999
  • Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir 705 So. 2d 724 La. 1997
    In Chatelain v. State, DOTD, n. 10 (La.1991), we stated in a footnote that the clear and convincing standard of Article 209 "has been held to be procedural and therefore applicable to cases that are tried after the amendment."
  • Brown v. Louisiana Indem. Co. 693 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    The recent Supreme Court case of Chatelain v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, held that critical requirement for classification of person as child under wrongful death statute is biological relationship between tort victim and parents; child or parents with biological connection to tort victim, whether legitimate, legitimated or illegitimate child, has right to bring action for wrongf
  • Fritz v. Home Furniture-Lafayette 677 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Chatelain v. State, DOTD, Bundren v. Affiliated Nursing Homes, Inc., 94-808 (La.App.
  • O'Brien v. O'Brien 653 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Chatelain v. State of Louisiana, DOTD
  • In Interest of CLS 649 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Gary v. DE Page Const. 640 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    and Development, (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
  • Baudoin v. Acadia Parish Police Jury 620 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Chatelain v. State, DOTD, (La.
  • Menard v. Foti 607 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    2d Cir.1990), rev’d on other grounds, a person is not a child of a parent merely by virtue of possessing a right of action for filiation.
  • Santiny ex rel. Santiny v. Pitre 591 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Chatelain v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, (La.App.