DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite White v. Broussard, 18 So. 2d 641.

30 citing documents.

  • Welch v. Welch 307 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    374 , (1952); "[T]he courts have consistently held that the right of the mother to the custody of the minor child is paramount to that of the father, unless, in his discretion, the trial judge concludes it is for the greater advantage of the child that it be entrusted to the care of the father, which conclusion is, of course, subject *739 to review by us." , (1944); "The age and sex of the child are important considerations, and the preference is always given to the mother who is not shown to be
  • McManus v. McManus 250 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1944) clearly evinces this legal principle, to-wit: “Our lawmakers long ago very sagaciously turned from the antiquated theory of punishing the party cast in a divorce proceeding to the far more important consideration of the welfare of those children that are unfortunately and unhappily swept along in
  • Couty v. Ayres 248 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1944), stated at page 642: “Our lawmakers long ago very sagaciously turned from the antiquated theory of punishing the party cast in a divorce proceeding to the far more important consideration of the welfare of *401 those children that are unfortunately and unhappily swept along in the turbulent wake
  • Murray v. Murray 220 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    861 , ]; , ; Withrow v. Withrow, 212 La.
  • Tiffee v. Tiffee 212 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    861 , ; , ; Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Ransom v. Mitchell 193 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    See Black v. Black, supra; , ; Withrow v. Withrow, 212 La.
  • Poole v. Poole 189 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    See Black v. Black, supra; , ; Withrow v. Withrow, 212 La.
  • Maynard v. Fayard 181 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    221 , (1953); , (1944); (La.App.
  • State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney 178 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • West v. West 170 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    427 , (1947); , (1944); Black v. Black, 205 La.
  • Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    205 , ; , ; Black v. Black, 205 La.
  • Smith v. Smith 141 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    205 , , , , and Cannon v. Cannon, 225 La.
  • Chapman v. Chapman 130 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    65 , ; , ; Fletcher v. Fletcher, 212 La.
  • Salley v. Salley 116 So. 2d 296 La. 1959
    See Black v. Black, supra; , ; Withrow v. Withrow, 212 La.
  • Drouin v. Hildenbrand 105 So. 2d 532 La. 1958
    The cases principally relied on by the defendant are inapposite, , , Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Sharp v. Sharp 81 So. 2d 833 La. 1955
    861 , ; , ; Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Decker v. Landry 80 So. 2d 91 La. 1955
    861 , ; , ; Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Richards v. Garth 65 So. 2d 109 La. 1953
    65 , ; , ; Fletcher v. Fletcher, 212 La.
  • Liner v. Liner 64 So. 2d 4 La. 1953
    and cases cited therein; Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Kieffer v. Heriard 58 So. 2d 836 La. 1952
    See Black v. Black, supra; , ; Withrow v. Withrow, 212 La.
  • Ane v. Ane 56 So. 2d 570 La. 1951
    861 , ; , ; Sanford v. Sanford, 208 La.
  • Williams v. Williams 41 So. 2d 736 La. 1949
  • Donnelly v. Datusch 35 So. 2d 413 La. 1948
    861 , ; , , and Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Fletcher v. Fletcher 34 So. 2d 43 La. 1948
    The parties having lived separate and apart for more than two years, the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce, Act No. 269 of 1916, as amended by Act No. 430 of 1938; , , thus leaving for our consideration the question of whether the wife, by a preponderance of the evidence, established her right to alimony under Article 160 of the Revised Civil Code, as amended, wherein it is provided that where “the husband has obtained a divorce upon the ground of such living separa
  • Withrow v. Withrow 31 So. 2d 849 La. 1947
    861 , ; , ; Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Ard v. Ard 28 So. 2d 461 La. 1946
    861 , ; , ; Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Veillon v. Landreneau 26 So. 2d 139 La. 1946
    However, , ; Sanford v. Sanford, 208 La.
  • Willis v. Willis 24 So. 2d 378 La. 1945
    146 .” , , we observed that through the amending of Civil Code Article 157 by the adoption of Act No. 38 of 1921, our “lawmakers long ago very sagaciously turned from the antiquated theory of punishing the party cast in a divorce proceeding to the far more important consideration of the welfare of those chi
  • Willis v. Willis 24 So. 2d 378 La. 1945
    642 , we observed that through the amending of Civil Code Article 157 by the adoption of Act No. 38 of 1921, our "lawmakers long ago very sagaciously turned from the antiquated theory of punishing the party cast in a divorce proceeding to the far more important consideration of the welfare of those ch
  • Sanford v. Sanford 24 So. 2d 145 La. 1945
    146 .” , , this court, after discussing the provision of Article 157 of the Revised Civil Code, as amended, said: “In applying this provision, the courts have consistently held that the right of the mother to the custody of the minor child is paramount to that of the father, unless, in his discretion, the t