DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pierce v. Pierce, 35 So. 2d 22.

20 citing documents.

  • Parker v. Parker 648 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Bergeron v. Bergeron 492 So. 2d 1193 La. 1986
  • Dykes v. Dykes 488 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Smith v. Smith 459 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    A visitation award that exceeded a reasonable amount was held tantamount to part time or divided custody and therefore impermissible; , (La.App.
  • Maxwell v. LeBlanc 434 So. 2d 375 La. 1983
    912 , (1949); , (1948); Jacquet v. Disimone, 175 La.
  • LeBouef v. LeBouef 325 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Lemoine v. Lemoine 303 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Gulino v. Gulino 303 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Lyckburg v. Lyckburg, La.App., .
  • Franz v. Franz 230 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    Holley v. Holley, supra; , .
  • Ogden v. Ogden 220 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Counsel for appellant contends, , , that bi-monthly visits from Friday to Sunday evening are excessive and amount to divided custody.
  • Gallagher v. Gallagher 212 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    365 (1939); , (1948); Johnson v. Johnson, 214 La.
  • Vinet v. Vinet 184 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    2d 340 , , , Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Rose v. Rose 177 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Holley v. Holley 158 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    912 , ; , ; Cormier v. Cormier, 193 La.
  • Lytell v. Lytell 144 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    the fact that the second wife worked was considered in determining the ability to pay."
  • Lyckburg v. Lyckburg 140 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Harris v. Harris 127 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    the fact that the second wife worked was considered in determining the ability to pay.
  • Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald 95 So. 2d 497 La. 1957
    In support of the contention that the child’s preference should not govern, , .
  • Wilmot v. Wilmot 65 So. 2d 321 La. 1953
    this Court stated: “Obviously, if an impressionable twelve year old boy is with his mother at times,' when he must go to school and be disciplined, and with his father and stepmother during his periods of recreation over each weekend, a conflict of emotions and comparisons is bound to develop which
  • Johnson v. Johnson 39 So. 2d 340 La. 1949