DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State in Interest of J, 582 So. 2d 269.

23 citing documents.

  • David Michael Craig v. Shari Renee Bishop La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    “To prove a matter by clear and convincing evidence means to demonstrate that the existence of a disputed fact is highly probable, that is, much more probable than its nonexistence.” State in the Interest of J., K., & T., (La.App.
  • Harrell v. Harrell 236 So. 3d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    State in the Interest of J, K, and T, , 275 (La.
  • State in the Interest of E.M.M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Art. 1015.”1 State in Interest of Q.P., 649 So.2d at 515 (citing State in Interest of J, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. E.M.M. 96 So. 3d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Art. 1015.” 1 State in Interest of Q.P., 649 So.2d at 515 (citing State in Interest of J, (La.App.
  • Explained State in the Interest of R.J.J. & M.L.J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    As explained in State in the Interest of J [.], (La.App.
  • Explained State in the Interest of B.K.N. & T.M.H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    As explained in State in the Interest of J [.], (La.App.
  • Explained State in Interest of Bkn 82 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    As explained in State in the Interest of /[.], (La.App.
  • Explained State Ex Rel. Ks 66 So. 3d 70 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    As explained in State in the Interest of J [.], (La.App.
  • Explained State in the Interest of K.S., K.S. & D.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    As explained in State in the Interest of J[.], (La.App.
  • Explained State ex rel. K.S. 66 So. 3d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    As explained in State in the Interest of J [.], (LaApp.
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State in the Interest of J, K & T, (La.App.
  • Explained Cd v. Lc 796 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    As explained in State in the Interest of J, (La.App.
  • Explained In the Interest of C.D. v. L.C. 796 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    As explained in State in the Interest of J, (La.App.
  • State, in Interest of Jk 702 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    State in the Interest of J, (La.App.
  • Explained In the Interest of S.R.S. 688 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    As explained in State in the Interest of J, (La.App.
  • State in Interest of BJ 672 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    See also State in the Interest of J, K AND T, (La.App.
  • Explained State in Interest of QP 649 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    As explained in State in the Interest of J, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. R.E. 642 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    2nd Cir.), writ denied, State, In the Interest of J, K, & T, (La.App.
  • Radke v. Fontenot 637 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    State in the Interest of J., (La.App.
  • State in Interest of JL 636 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    State in the interest of J, (La.App.
  • DiVincenti v. McIntyre 611 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    For a definition of what constitutes clear and convincing evidence, see State in the Interest of J, K and T, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. CH 599 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    The “clear and convincing” standard of proof required when terminating parental rights was recently explained in State in Interest of J, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. J. 583 So. 2d 1145 La. 1991
    Prior report: La.App., .