No. 38810.
Precedential
Processed
Roshto v. Roshto
Roshto v. Roshto, 39 So. 2d 344 (La. 1949).
Cited by
- W.M.E. v. E.J.E. 619 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
- Wme v. Eje 619 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
- Reed v. Hargroder 525 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Maxwell v. LeBlanc 434 So. 2d 375 La. 1983
- Vinet v. Vinet 184 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
- Holley v. Holley 158 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Opinion text
HAWTHORNE, Justice (concurring). I concur in the decree reversing and setting aside the judgment, and remanding the case to the lower court. I am of the opinion, however, that it is not proper for this court to determine the number of visits that should be allowed to the father. That is a matter within the discretion of the.trial judge, subject, of course, to review by this court.