DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So. 2d 731.

639 citing documents.

  • Dwane Link v. Shelley Fritz Link La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Link v. Link 139 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, pp. 7-8 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Aymami v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 145 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Rhodes v. Schultis 140 So. 3d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Legal errors are prejudicial “when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98); .
  • Hanks v. Hanks 140 So. 3d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[A] court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong.’ ” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 6 (La.2/6/98), ().
  • McCaffery v. McCaffery 140 So. 3d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Blaire Bridges v. Richard Bridges La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Mary Norman Thompson v. Jeffrey R. Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 6/1/00), and Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577(La.2/6/98)
  • Bagwell v. Bagwell 132 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Adams, supra; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • T.D. v. F.X.A. 148 So. 3d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    permanent custody, the party seeking a change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is “so deleterious to the child as to justify a 17modifícation of the custody decree,” or of proving “by clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by the change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.” Bergeron, 492 So.2d at 1200.
  • Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 129 So. 3d 1272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
    See Evans v. *1284 Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98); .
  • Chandler v. Chandler 132 So. 3d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    I respectfully disagree that the “material change in circumstances” rule under Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), , has application for any change to a custody arrangement to which the parties consented with an “Interim Judgment.” In Trettin v. Trettin, 37,260 (La.App.2d Cir.3/17/03), , this court addressed an “interim” custody judgment.
  • Danette Williams McManus v. Bryan Keith McManus La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2/6/98), (citing Hensgens v. Hensgens, 94-1200 (La.App.
  • McManus v. McManus 127 So. 3d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    "A considered decree is an award of permanent custody in which the trial court receives evidence of parental fitness to exercise care, custody, and control of children.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, pp. 12-13 (La.2/6/98), (citing Hensgens v. Hensgens, 94-1200 (La.App.
  • Snider v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance 130 So. 3d 922 La. 2013
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Tiffany A. Baker v. City of Leesville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2/6/98), (citations omitted).
  • Baker v. City of Leesville 127 So. 3d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), (citations omitted).
  • Ramsey v. Morales 131 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Hoskins v. Hoskins, 36,031 (La.App.2d Cir.4/5/02), ; Masters v. Masters, 33,438 (La.App.2d Cir.4/5/00), , writ denied, 01-3096 (La.12/7/01), .
  • Josie E. Sabbides v. Mark S. Sabbides La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Bourgeois v. Bourgeois 135 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Ramirez v. Ramirez 124 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “The primary consideration and prevailing inquiry is whether the custody arrangement is in the best interest of the child.” McCormic v. Rider, 09-2584, pp. 3—4 (La.2/12/10), (citing Ay- *18 ans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), ).
  • Lawson v. Lawson 121 So. 3d 769 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    As further explained in Trettin : Such judgment is provisional only in the sense that custody may be altered later, after material changes in circumstances occur, as illustrated in cases such as Evans v. Lungrin, 1997-0541 (La.02/06/98)
  • Ross v. Enervest Operating, L.L.C. 119 So. 3d 943 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Tanana v. Tanana 140 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    LAW AND DISCUSSION It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Stead v. Swanner 119 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Id., citing Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Bowden v. Brown 114 So. 3d 1194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Corral v. Corral, 47,294 (La.App.2d Cir.6/13/12), .
  • Patterson ex rel. Haggan v. Allain 116 So. 3d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Grady P. Galland v. Heidi Mahl Galland La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2/6/98), the supreme court discussed the appellate review standard where the trial court has committed legal error.
  • Kara Margarett Davis v. Keith Edward Griffith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Pamela Manuel v. Larry Rhinehart Bieber La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Moore v. Moore 111 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Sanders v. Brown 110 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    9:335(A)(2)(b), which provides that under an award of joint custody “[t]o the extent it is feasible and in the best interest of the child, physical custody should be shared equally.” Citing Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.02/06/98), , LeDonald claims that the failure of the trial court to award equal sharing is legal error interdicting its factual findings in this case and warranting a de novo review by this court.
  • Robbie Wayne Willis v. Kristy Lorraine (Lowe) Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    La.Civ.Code art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La.2/6/98)
  • St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Guy Hopkins Construction Co. 108 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), (citations omitted).
  • Riverside Recycling, LLC v. BWI Companies 112 So. 3d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Carolyn L. Moss v. George A. Goodger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Moss v. Goodger 104 So. 3d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Civ.Code art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Jeremy A. Varney v. Shannon M. Varney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    See Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La.2/6/98)
  • Mulkey v. Mulkey 108 So. 3d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Bergeron v. Bergeron, supra; Sebren v. Sebren, 46,076 (La.App.
  • Joseph v. Williams 105 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Wingfield v. State Department of Transportation and Development, 2001-2668 (La.
  • Noe v. Basile Police Department 103 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    23:1021 (8)(e) In his first assignment of error, Mr. Noe contends that the workers’ compensation judge erred in requiring him to prove that his heart-related injury was caused by physical work, stress, or exertion which went “beyond what is unusual.” In Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), , the supreme court discussed appellate review in cases where legal error is alleged, stating: It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact
  • Camille Landry v. Psa of Lafayette, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2/6/98), : 1 [W]here one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable, and, if the record is other complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record
  • Jarvis Harmon, Sr. v. Victoria Williams Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    ―However, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record.‖ Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, pp. 7-8 (La.2/6/98)
  • Jerry Noe v. Basile Police Department La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2/6/98), the supreme court discussed appellate review in cases where legal error is alleged, stating: It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court‟s or a jury‟s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So
  • Harmon v. Harmon 101 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “However, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, pp. 7-8 (La.2/6/98); .
  • Walley v. Vargas 104 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Wingfield v. State Department of Transportation and Development, 2001-2668 (La.App.
  • Suzanna L. Cathey v. Melissa Lynn Ogea and John Brian Cathey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Cathey v. Ogea 98 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Corral v. Corral 93 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Semmes v. Semmes, 45,006 (La.App.2d Cir.12/16/09), ; Shivers v. Shivers, 44,596 (La.App.2d Cir.7/1/09), .
  • Gaunt v. Progressive Security Insurance 92 So. 3d 1250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), , the Supreme Court stated: A legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial.