Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Folse v. Folse, 738 So. 2d 1040.

40 citing documents.

Laurie Marshall Versus Travis Thurman La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
Jamar A. Flowers v. Adrienne D. Tasker La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Walker La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
6/29/99), : It is well known and documented that sexual abuse of children is extremely difficult to detect because “the offense often takes place in secret, the victim is young, vulnerable, and reluctant to testify, and there is often no physical or other evidence the abuse took place.” State
State of Louisiana v. Austin William Bost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
4 Cir. 10/6/99), (quoting Folse v. Folse, 98-1976, p. 19 (La.6/29/99), and upholding admission of six-year-old victim’s statement to a hospital physician that her father had put his penis in her) (footnote omitted).
John David Dean v. Christie Lynn Burkeen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
6/29/99), (quoting State v. Miller, 98-301, p. 4 (La.
Wayne Gonzales Versus Melissa Gonzales La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
Shelia Hillyard v. Harry Cornelius; Shelter Mutual Insurance Company and National General Assurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Kimberly Jeanne Champagne Menard v. Tony James Menard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
South Lafourche Levee District v. Chad M. Jarreau 217 So. 3d 298 La. 2017
6/29/99), and New Orleans Rosenbush Claims Service, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 94–2223 (La.
George Mason, Jr. v. Deanna Harbison Mason La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
6/29/99), (), wherein the supreme court held: “We have previously held that a judge’s ‘slip of the tongue’ is not reversible error.” Thus, Deanna’s case was appropriately dismissed, either by involuntary dismissal or peremptory exception of no cause of actio
Mason v. Mason 203 So. 3d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
6/29/99), (), wherein the supreme court held: “We have previously held that a judge’s ‘slip of the tongue’ is not reversible error.” Thus, Deanna’s case was appropriately dismissed, either by involuntary dismissal or peremptory exception of no cause of action.
Brandy Lynn Fecke, Stephen C. Fecke, and Karen Fecke v. the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University … 217 So. 3d 237 La. 2016
6/29/99), and New Orleans Rosenbush Claims Service, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 94-2223 (La.
State v. Sanderson 174 So. 3d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
art. 104(A); Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), .
Tracy Ray Lomont v. Michelle Myer-Bennett and Xyz Insurance Company 172 So. 3d 620 La. 2015
6/29/99), -49; Stobart, 617 So.
State of Louisiana v. David J. Koederitz 166 So. 3d 981 La. 2015
6/29/99), and upholding admission of six-year old victim’s statement to a hospital physician that her father had put his penis in her) (footnote omitted).
Sullivan v. City of Baton Rouge 170 So. 3d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
260 , 154 L.Ed.2d 107 ; Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), -49 .
C.M.J. v. L.M.C., Wife of C.M.J. 156 So. 3d 16 La. 2014
6/29/99), that the legislature did not “remove any gate-keeping discretion from the judge regarding admissibility of evidence” in cases where sexual abuse is alleged.
Livingston C. Guidry, Et Ux. v. Kysha Lashane Bernard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Guidry v. Bernard 142 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), .
Jones v. Chatelain 148 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
24 Furthermore, it is well-known and documented that sexual abuse of children is extremely difficult to detect, because “the offense often takes place in secret, the victim is young, vulnerable, and reluctant to testify, and there is often no physical or other evidence the abuse took place.” Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), , quoting State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
Bowden v. Brown 114 So. 3d 1194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
art. 1101 B(2); Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), ; Willhite v. Willhite, 44,535 (La.App.2d Cir.8/19/09), .
Wegener v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 60 So. 3d 1220 La. 2011
Folse v. Folse, 1998-1976 (La.6/29/99), .
State, in the Interest of Hh 24 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Willhite v. Willhite 17 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), .
TEUTSCH v. Cordell 15 So. 3d 1272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
2613 , 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982); Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), ; Buchanan v. Langston, 36,520 (La.App.2d Cir.9/18/02), .
State ex rel. D.G. 11 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976, p. 13-14 (La.6/29/99), -1048 .
State Ex Rel. Dg 11 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976, p. 13-14 (La.6/29/99), -1048 .
Explained Cls v. Gjs 953 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
As explained in Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), , the focus of the Violence Relief Act is "not the innocence or guilt of the parent, but the best interest and custody of the child."
State Ex Rel. JM v. Malant 945 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Patrick Jefferson Murphy v. Susie Lynn Book La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Murphy v. Murphy 889 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976, p. 9 (La.6/29/99), .
HOLLY & SMITH ARC., INC. v. St. Helena Congregate Facility 872 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976, p. 11 (La.6/29/99), ; see La.
Hall v. Folger Coffee Co. 843 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976, p. 11 (La.6/29/99), ; Jones v. Peyton Place, Inc., 95-0574, pp. 11-12 (La.App.
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist. 836 So. 2d 14 La. 2003
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), .
State v. Smith 815 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
was "unavailable" for live testimony pursuant to Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), and La.
Doh v. Tlh 799 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99); .
Gns v. Sbs 796 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
In Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), , the supreme court found that in a child custody case under the PSFVRA, hearsay statements of the child are admissible.
G.N.S. v. S.B.S. 796 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
In Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), , the supreme court found that in a child custody case under the PSFVRA, hearsay statements of the child are admissible.
Romero v. Little Britches Day Care Center, Inc. 768 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Folse v. Folse, 98-1796 (La.6/29/99); .
State v. Brown 746 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
As our Supreme Court recently noted in Folse v. Folse, 98-1976, p. 19 (La.6/29/99), , decisions regarding the admissibility of hearsay testimony are to be made on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind that "it is clear that the legislature has expressed an overriding interest in protecting child victims of sexual abuse by encouraging the admission of reliable hearsay evidence for the trial court to w