DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bynog v. Bynog, 663 So. 2d 86.

15 citing documents.

  • Rosalind Reed Thibodeaux v. Lauren Wade O'Quain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    3 Cir. 7/26/95), reference Article 134, but fail to recognize that Article 134 uses the permissive “may” to introduce the twelve factors.
  • Thibodeaux v. O'QUAIN 33 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    3 Cir. 7/26/95) , , reference Article 134, but fail to recognize that Article 134 uses the permissive "may” to introduce the twelve factors.
  • Dupre v. Dupre 834 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 7/26/95) ; , in support for his contention that the "seven and seven" custody arrangement should not be changed is misplaced, however, as these cases were decided using the prior version of La.R.S.
  • Stephens v. Stephens 822 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    3d Cir.7/26/95), and Remson v. Remson, 95-1951 (La.App.
  • Hoskins v. Hoskins 814 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux 768 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    App. 3 Cir. 7/26/95); , this court emphasized the following: *87 Although custody decisions ultimately must turn on the "best interest" of the children affected, trial judges are not permitted to overlook the factors legislatively enacted to guide their deliberations or point to one factor over all the others which may favor a contrary
  • DeGeorge v. Gilley 701 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • Brown v. Brown 692 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    3 Cir. 7/26/95) ; , and the First Circuit's decision of Remson v. Remson, 95-1951 (La.App.
  • Acklin v. Acklin 690 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    3d Cir. 07/26/95), ; (La.App.
  • Evans v. Lungrin 686 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Dearmon v. Dearmon 682 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    3 Cir. 7/26/95) ; , we noted that the trial court is obligated under the statute to consider the “equal physical custody to the extent feasible” mandate.
  • Voorhies v. Voorhies 688 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Remson v. Remson 672 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Geen v. Geen 666 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Hunt v. Hunt 664 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    3 Cir. 7/26/95); , we noted that the trial court is obligated under the statute to consider the “equal physical custody to the extent feasible” mandate.