Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Green v. Paul, 31 So. 2d 819.

31 citing documents.

In Re: Adoption of E.F.F. by J.L.B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Green v. Paul, []; In re Ackenhausen, []; In re Lafitte, 247 La.
In re Adoption of E.F.F. ex rel. J.L.B. 85 So. 3d 1286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Green v. Paul, [ , (1947) ]; In re Ackenhausen, [ 244 La.
In Re Adoption of BGS 556 So. 2d 545 La. 1990
1034 , (1966); , (1947); State ex rel.
State ex rel. J.W. 536 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
346 n. *791 2, , 822 n. 2 (1947), which noted that the laws of adoption “must be given a strict construction as they are in derogation of the natural right of the parent to his child.” In the instant matter, it was stipulated at the trial on the motion to set aside the appellees’ act of surrender, that
In Re McK 444 So. 2d 1362 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
304 , (1956); , (1947); (La.App.
In Re Go Applying for Adoption 433 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Adoption of Vest 427 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
In re Brunet 408 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Green v. Paul, supra; [ , (1947)] In re Ackenhausen, supra; [ 244 La.
Woods v. Collins 274 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
There is no dispute that the requirements of the law must be met, for as stated by Justice McCaleb (later Chief Justice) , 31 So.
Moreland v. Craft 244 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
(1947), requiring the continuing consent of the natural parent up to the time of the final decree of adoption.
In Re Spraggins 234 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
918 , ; and it was said in a , , that laws providing for adoption must be given a strict construction as they are in derogation of the natural right of a parent to his child."
Roy v. Speer 192 So. 2d 554 La. 1966
“It has been firmly settled by this court that adoption is a creature of statute; that, this being so, it is only what the law makes it and that, to establish the relation, the statutory requirements must be strictly carried out, otherwise, the *1039 adoption is a nullity.” See, also, Succession of Ga
In re Adoption of Bickerstaff 190 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
918 , ; and it was said in a , , that laws providing for adoption must be given a strict construction as they are in derogation of the natural right of a parent to his child.” See also In Re Hughes, La.App., 176 So.
Roy v. Speer 184 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
In Re Hughes 176 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
(1947), was decided by the Supreme Court.
In re Adoption of Meier 169 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1964
our Supreme Court said: “Adoption is defined to be the establishment of the relationship of par *585 ent and child between persons not so related by nature and the act of adoption creates a status rather than a contractual relation (2 C.J.S., Adoption of Children, § 1, pp. 367 and 368).
Succession of Marquette 167 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1964
In speaking of adoptions, , , said: “While adoption is a practice of grant antiquity, having been known to the.
In Re Ackenhausen 154 So. 2d 380 La. 1963
918 , ; and it was said in a , , that laws providing for adoption must be given a strict construction as they are in derogation of the natural right of a parent to his child.
In re Ackenhausen 146 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
v. Paul, , , said: “While adoption is a practice of great antiquity, having been known to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks and ancient Germans and having been recognized in the civil law before the time of Justinian, there is no adoption at common law and, in the United States, it exists only by statu
In re Adoption of Gordon 135 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Crumpacker v. Spalding 132 So. 2d 875 La. 1961
Crumpacker v. Spalding 126 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
In Re Harville 96 So. 2d 20 La. 1957
The judge stated, however, , , and In re Byrd, 226 La.
Madere v. Long 91 So. 2d 771 La. 1956
In re Amorello 85 So. 2d 883 La. 1956
and the authorities cited therein.
In Re Byrd 75 So. 2d 331 La. 1954
Justice Hamiter is of this view, So.2d 819 , and after further consideration I am convinced that I was in error in concurring in the decree in that case, and that Justice Hamiter was correct.
Succession of GAMBINO 73 So. 2d 800 La. 1954
2 C.J.S., Adoption of Children, § 1, pp. 367, 368; , 31 So.
Succession of Pizzillo 65 So. 2d 783 La. 1953
In support of this proposition, , , which cited with approval 2 C.J.S., Adoption of Children, § 5, p. 373, wherein it is stated that statutes which do not provide for the consent of the natural parents to the adoption are void as an unconstitutional deprivation of a right without due process qf law.
Succession of THOMSON 60 So. 2d 411 La. 1952
Ball v. Campbell 55 So. 2d 250 La. 1951
v. Paul, , , a decision of-this court in which there was enunciated and applied the doctrine that the continuing consent of the natural parent is vital to the validity *1085 of an adoption decree.
State Ex Rel. Martin v. Garza 46 So. 2d 760 La. 1950
and authorities therein cited; Owles v. Jackson, 199 La.