Cited by

2/6/98), Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.

2/6/98), Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.

2/ 6/ 98), ( where one or more trial court legal errors interdicts the fact-finding process and the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record).

2/6/98), Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.

2/ 6/ 98), Jenkins, 370 So.

02/6/98), Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.

2/6/98), (providing that, when an underlying decree is a stipulated judgment, the moving party must prove that a material change in circumstances has occurred since rendition of the underlying decree and that the modification is in the child’s best interest).

2/6/98), ) (alteration in original).

2/6/98), : [W]here one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable, and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record

216198), Jenkins, 370 So.

Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98)

2/6/98), Langston v. Langston, 54,611 (La.