DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stogner v. Stogner, 739 So. 2d 762.

141 citing documents.

  • Richardson v. Richardson 859 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 8 (La.1999), .
  • Liles v. Liles 850 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In Stogner v. Stogner, 1998-3044 (La.07/07/99), , the supreme court held that even though the parties had stipulated to an amount of child support, the trial court nevertheless was required to consider the guidelines and to give oral or written reasons warranting any deviation from |4the guidelines.
  • McConnico v. Red Oak Timber Co. 847 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.07/07/99), .
  • Peck v. Peck 847 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    See, Stogner v. Stogner, XXXX-XXXX (La.07/07/99), .
  • State, Dept. of Social Services v. Burkett 845 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    As clarified by the supreme court in Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), -70 , the party seeking modification need not prove a substantial change in circumstances, but only a change sufficient to justify an increase or decrease in child support.
  • Palmer v. BESE 842 So. 2d 363 La. 2003
    SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/29/01), Citing Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 5 (La.7/7/99)
  • Arbuckle v. Arbuckle 833 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    9:315.1(A) and Stogner v. Stogner, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/7/99), .
  • Walker v. Walker 832 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that any change in circumstances is sufficient to justify a reduction or increase in child support, a (La.App.
  • Reeves v. Reeves 823 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), ; Harper v. Harper, 33,452 (La.App.2d Cir.6/21/00), .
  • Walden v. Walden 835 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Folse v. Folse 818 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, pp. 11-12 (La.7/7/99), -70 , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that the party seeking modification need only prove a change of circumstance sufficient to justify an increase or decrease in child support.
  • Verges v. Verges 814 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-8044, p. 9 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Bagwell v. Bagwell 812 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.07/07/99), ; Harper v. Harper, 33,452 (La.App.2d Cir.06/21/00), .
  • State Ex Rel. AM v. Taylor 807 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    As clarified by the supreme court in Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), -70 , the party seeking modification need not prove a substantial change in circumstances, but only a change sufficient to justify an increase or decrease in child support.
  • Craft v. Craft 805 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    [7] As reiterated by the supreme court in Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 *1220 (La.07/07/99), , requiring proof of a change of circumstances is, in general, valid, and is useful to prevent relitigation of the same issues and to protect the finality of judgments and compromises.
  • Jacobs v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU INS. 815 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    In Re Succession of Boyter, 99-0761 (La.1/7/00), ; Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Hester v. Hester 804 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Mr. Hester cites Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), , for the proposition that a spouse attempting to modify a support order must only establish a change in circumstances, not a substantial change.
  • Gefroh v. Gefroh 801 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Stogner v. Stogner; 98-3044 (La.7/7/99); ; La.Civ.Code art. 227.
  • Fink v. Bryant 801 So. 2d 346 La. 2001
    CIV.CODE ANN. art. 227; Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Hansel v. Hansel 802 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    3 Cir. 10/7/98) , ; Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Rachal v. Rachal 795 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), , (La.App.
  • Dettman v. Rablee 809 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    [15] Authement has been abrogated in part by Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), , only on the improper use of a "substantial change" rather than a "change" in circumstances as a standard for increases or decreases in child support.
  • Farrar v. Farrar 791 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Louisiana Revised Statute 9:311(A) provides that: “An award for support shall not be reduced or increased unless the party seeking the reduction or increase shows a change in circumstances of one of the parties between the time of the previous award and the time of the motion for modification of the award.” Furthermore, in Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “although we find that the adequacy of the stipulated amount must be evaluated in light of t
  • City of Pineville v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE 791 So. 2d 609 La. 2001
    Stogner [v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99) .]
  • SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond 808 So. 2d 294 La. 2001
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 5 (La.7/7/99)
  • Lorbeck v. Lorbeck 789 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 11 (La.7/7/99), , the Supreme Court explained that the term “substantial” had been incorrectly added to the statutory language by courts of appeal.
  • Leger v. Leger 808 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 9 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Hudnall v. Hudnall 808 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    As recently clarified by the supreme court in Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, pp. 11-12 (La.7/7/99), -70 , the party seeking modification need only prove a change of circumstances sufficient to justify an increase or decrease in child support.
  • James v. James 785 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    9:315.1(D); Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.07/07/99), ; Neill v. Neill, 33-398 (La.
  • Dugger v. Dugger 785 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99); ; La.
  • Dupuy v. Dupuy 808 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    See also Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, pp. 11-12 (La.7/7/99), -70 .
  • Kelly v. Kelly 775 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 7 (La.7/7/99), .
  • STATE IN INTEREST OF GILBERT v. Gilbert 775 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Council v. Council 775 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Gilbreath v. Gilbreath, 32,292 (La.App.2d Cir.9/22/99), (citing Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), ).
  • Glorioso v. Glorioso 776 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in the case of Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 *539 (La.7/7/99), , determined that "the Legislature has provided that the burden of proving a change in circumstances does not require proof of a substantial change ...
  • Guinther v. Baird 768 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Neill v. Neill 764 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    In Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), , the supreme court interpreted LSA-R.S.
  • Tatum v. Tatum 794 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    As recently clarified by the supreme court in Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.07/07/99), , the party seeking modification need only prove a change of circumstances sufficient to justify an increase or decrease in child support.
  • Guillot v. Munn 756 So. 2d 290 La. 2000
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 6 (La.7/7/99), .
  • In Re Succession of Boyter 756 So. 2d 1122 La. 2000
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), ; (La.
  • Gilbreath v. Gilbreath 743 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Stogner v. Stogner, 98-C-3044 (La.7/7/99), .