Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Remson v. Remson, 672 So. 2d 409.

19 citing documents.

Justin Hodges v. Amy Hodges 181 So. 3d 700 La. 2015
1 Cir. 4/4/96) , (wherein the appellate court first stated that the trial court for “ ‘good cause shown’ declined to name a domiciliary parent,” but thereafter stated, “We affirm the trial court’s ,order for co-domiciliary status of the parties.”).
Hodges v. Hodges 166 So. 3d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1st Cir.4/4/96), , (affirming the trial court’s “order for co-domiciliary status of the parties.”) 3 But cf. Hoffpauir v. Hoffpauir, 2006-1923, p. 1 n. 2 (La.App.
Distefano v. Distefano 169 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1st Cir.4/4/96), , (affirming the trial court’s "order for co-domiciliary status of the parties” although the case has been superseded by statute on other grounds, as recognized in Stephens v. Stephens, 2002-0402 (La.App.
Wolfe v. Hanson 991 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
1 Cir. 4/4/96), -13 , as authority that where naming one or the other parent as domiciliary parent would create a winner/loser dynamic, good cause exists to decline to designate either.
Bourque v. Bourque 870 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
1st Cir.4/4/96), ; Zanco v. Zanco, 97-342 (La.App.
Dupre v. Dupre 834 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
1 Cir. 4/4/96) ; , and Bynog v. Bynog, 95-173 (La.App.
Stephens v. Stephens 822 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1st *775 Cir.4/4/96), , cases decided under a prior version of La.
Shambley v. Holmes 821 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
1 Cir. 4/4/96) , at 412 .
Petsch v. Petsch 809 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Anderson v. Anderson 788 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
1 Cir. 4/4/96) , ; Zanco v. Zanco, 97-342 (La.App.
Dupuy v. Dupuy 808 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Firmin v. Firmin 770 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Mathews v. Mathews 770 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
1st Cir.4/4/96), ; Muller v. Muller, 94-281, p. 8 (La.App.
Perkins v. Perkins 747 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Gill v. Dufrene 706 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Zanco v. Zanco 703 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
DeGeorge v. Gilley 701 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
1 Cir. 4/4/96) , at 412 , in which the court stated: LSA-R.S.
Brown v. Brown 692 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
1 Cir. 4/4/96) ; , for the proposition that the six-month custodial plan is mandated by law.
Evans v. Lungrin 686 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
1 Cir. 4/4/96); , the court stated: Previously, the courts consistently held that joint custody did not mean a 50-50 sharing of time.