DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Willis v. Willis, 24 So. 2d 378.

30 citing documents.

  • Tutorship of Shea 619 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    293 , (1959); , (1945); (La.App.
  • Kleiser v. Kleiser 619 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    293 , (1959); , (1945); (La.App.
  • Tutorship of Peavy 535 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Cole v. Cole 265 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1945); Messner v. Messner, supra; (La.App.
  • Sciortino v. Sciortino 209 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
  • Tiffee v. Tiffee 212 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    25 , ; , .” (Emphasis added.)
  • Ransom v. Mitchell 193 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    See Willis v. Willis (1945) , .
  • Vinet v. Vinet 184 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    475 , , , and Cormier v. Cormier, 193 La.
  • State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney 178 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Appropos the case at bar is the following language contained in Smith v. Smith, La.App., : “ , , White v. Broussard, 206 La.
  • Holley v. Holley 158 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    it was likewise held objectionable to allow the father visitation rights for a day and night each week end.
  • Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    1060 , ; , ; White v. Broussard, 206 La.
  • Smith v. Smith 141 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    White v. Broussard, 206 La.
  • Wade v. Wade 129 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
  • Messner v. Messner 122 So. 2d 90 La. 1960
  • Salley v. Salley 116 So. 2d 296 La. 1959
  • Drouin v. Hildenbrand 105 So. 2d 532 La. 1958
    25 , , , , Veillon v. Landreneau, 209 La.
  • Williams v. American Employers Insurance 103 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    195 , ], in which case the court, while denying recovery on the ground that the claimants did not come under the classification of legitimate stepchildren, nevertheless, remanded the case to the district court for the express purpose of permitting plaintiff “ * * * to allege that the children were members of the family of t
  • Sharp v. Sharp 81 So. 2d 833 La. 1955
    25 , ; , and Donnelly v. Datusch, 213 La.
  • Decker v. Landry 80 So. 2d 91 La. 1955
    25 , ; , ; Veillon v. Landreneau, 209 La.
  • Wilmot v. Wilmot 65 So. 2d 321 La. 1953
    631 , ; , and Sanford v. Sanford, 208 La.
  • Liner v. Liner 64 So. 2d 4 La. 1953
    25 , , and cases cited therein; , ; State ex rel.
  • Kieffer v. Heriard 58 So. 2d 836 La. 1952
  • Ane v. Ane 56 So. 2d 570 La. 1951
    1073 , ; , ; Veillon v. Landreneaux, 209 La.
  • Chapman v. Chapman 47 So. 2d 332 La. 1950
    being the children’s welfare and best interest, , and cases therein cited.
  • Sampognaro v. Sampognaro 41 So. 2d 456 La. 1949
  • Donnelly v. Datusch 35 So. 2d 413 La. 1948
    25 , , , , where it was decided that, in matters involving children of tender years, it is to their greater advantage that they be placed in the custody of their mother, unless she is found to be unfit.
  • Pierce v. Pierce 35 So. 2d 22 La. 1948
    The minds of children — their likes and dislikes — respond readily to the influence of associations and environment.” , .
  • State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Morrison 32 So. 2d 847 La. 1947
  • Withrow v. Withrow 31 So. 2d 849 La. 1947
  • Ard v. Ard 28 So. 2d 461 La. 1946