DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Interest of JM, 590 So. 2d 565.

27 citing documents.

  • Earl T. Lindsay, Jr. v. Ports America Gulfport, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    In In Interest of J.M., (La.
  • State v. Rogers 223 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    In the Interest of the Minor Child, J.M., (La.
  • L.J.D. v. M.V.S. 212 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    In the Interest of J.M., (La.
  • State Ex Rel. Erl 4 So. 3d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • State Department of Social Services ex rel. S.S. 968 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    It has been noted that “[i]n paternity actions involving support of a minor child, the State’s interest in an accurate determination of paternity is compelling.” In Interest of JM
  • State v. Clark 851 So. 2d 1055 La. 2003
    at 1834 ; In the Interest of J.M., Carthan, 377 So.2d at 311 .
  • State ex rel. Department of Social Services v. Johnson 753 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    4 Presumably, in response to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling in In Interest of J.M., the State, on July 15, 1992, filed a rule to show cause as to why a blood test order should not be granted.
  • Scott v. Veal 710 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    3 Cir. 4/06/94) ; -83 , rehearing denied, writ denied, 94-1547 (La.9/30/94); , which states: In In Interest of J. M. [ ], the Supreme Court was concerned with the question of what must be established in a paternity suit to trigger court ordered blood testing.
  • State v. Shaddinger 702 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    9:396 In Interest of J.M., and explained that in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the.
  • STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERV. v. McCorkle 694 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • Hall v. Hall 689 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    In In Interest of J.M., [ ] the supreme court was concerned with the question of what must be established in a paternity suit to trigger court-ordered blood testing.
  • State v. Powdrill 684 So. 2d 350 La. 1996
  • Roberts v. Franklin 688 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    See, e.g., In Interest of J.M.
  • State v. Simien 677 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In the case of In Interest of J.M., the supreme court of this State determined that while a court order for blood testing is a search and seizure for constitutional purposes, establishing a child's paternity is a legitimate State interest.
  • State v. Dillon 670 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In the Interest of J.M., the court noted that the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute and may be reasonably regulated when the state has a sufficiently weighty interest.
  • Succession of Robinson 654 So. 2d 682 La. 1995
  • Putnam v. Mayeaux 645 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    In the Interest of J.M., (La.
  • Lakeside Imports, Inc. v. State 639 So. 2d 253 La. 1994
    the Minor Child, J.M., (La.
  • State ex rel. A.N.V. v. McCain 637 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    In denying the defendant’s motions, the trial court found that the case In the Interest of the Minor Child, J.M., requires a show cause hearing only in paternity actions instituted by private individuals and not in actions instituted by the district attorney on behalf of the state.
  • Lastrapes v. Willis 635 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    See, e.g., In Interest of J.M.
  • State v. WAS 629 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    9:396 was addressed by the supreme court in In the Interest of J.M.
  • State v. W.A.S. 629 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    9:396 was addressed by the supreme court in In the Interest ofJ.M.
  • STATE, DSS v. Williams 605 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, In the Interest of the Minor Child, J.M., held that in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants the issuance of a court order for bl
  • State, Department of Social Services, Office of Family Support ex rel. Smith v. Williams 605 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, In the Interest of the Minor Child, J.M., held that in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants the issuance of a court order for bl
  • State v. Pierre 606 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Relator's argument is premised upon In the Interest of J.M., (La.
  • In Re RWT Applying for Adoption of JD 594 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    In the Interest of J.M., (La.
  • In re R.W.T. 594 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992