DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 41 So. 2d 456.

41 citing documents.

  • Hudson v. Hudson 295 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    151 , (1952); , (1949); Ard v. Ard, supra.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 268 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    151 , ; , ; and Salley v. Salley, 238 La.
  • Strother v. Strother 248 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    151 , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, *870 , ; and Salley v. Salley, 238 La.
  • Jones v. Timber 247 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Nugent v. Nugent 232 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    The basis for its decision is succinctly set out in the last paragraph of the opinion of the Supreme Court, which reads: "Aside from our reluctance to upset a judgment of a trial court in divorce matters involving the custody of children, , , we have no hesitancy, under the facts of this case, in approving the conclusion of the court below that the environment and living conditions to which the children would be subjected by a change of custody `would not be conducive to their best interests.'"
  • Murray v. Murray 220 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    427 , ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, supra [ , ]."
  • Morrow v. Morrow 218 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Sampognaro v. Sampognaro (1949), , .
  • Sciortino v. Sciortino 209 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    One is that a mother has the paramount right of custody unless she is proved morally unfit ( , ), and the other is that broad discretion in awarding custody is vested in the trial judge.
  • Lovell v. Lovell 205 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
  • LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 194 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    374 , (1952); , (1949); (La.
  • Ransom v. Mitchell 193 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Poole v. Poole 189 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Hoffpauir v. Meche 189 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    861 , ; , .” The only question presented by this appeal is whether under the facts of this case the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded custody of the two minor children to their father.
  • Maynard v. Fayard 181 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    151 , 5S So.2d 836 (1952); , (1949); (La.App.
  • Wells v. Wells 180 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    In concluding, the court said: "Aside from our reluctance to upset a judgment of a trial court in divorce matters involving the custody of children, , , we have no hesitancy, under the facts of this case, in approving the conclusion of the court below that the environment and living conditions to which the children would be subjected by a change of custody `would not be conductive to their best interests'."
  • Schilling v. White 180 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    861 , (1944); , (1949); Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
  • Rose v. Rose 177 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Capuder v. Misko 177 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Decker v. Landry, supra; , .
  • 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
    374 , (1952); , (1949); Withrow v. Withrow, 212 La.
  • Brunt v. Brunt 166 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Antony v. Antony 160 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
  • Teague v. Teague 157 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Stevens v. Stevens 147 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Carey v. Nastasi 147 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Kaufman v. Kaufman 146 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
  • Gary v. Gary 143 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Finally, in Decker v. Landry, the Court said: "Aside from our reluctance to upset a judgment of a trial court in divorce matters involving the custody of children, , , we have no hesitancy, under the facts of this case, in approving the conclusion of the court below that the environment and living conditions to which the children would be subjected by a change of custody `would not be conducive to their best interests'."
  • Tullier v. Tullier 140 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    750 , ; , ; State ex rel.
  • Lyckburg v. Lyckburg 140 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Gentry v. Gentry 136 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Gilbert v. Hutchinson 135 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Baasen v. Baasen 133 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    861 , ; , ; Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
  • Messner v. Messner 122 So. 2d 90 La. 1960
    2d 321 ; , ; Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La.
  • Salley v. Salley 116 So. 2d 296 La. 1959
  • Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald 95 So. 2d 497 La. 1957
    Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
  • Decker v. Landry 80 So. 2d 91 La. 1955
    Aside from our reluctance to upset a judgment of a trial court in divorce matters involving the custody of children, , , we have no hesitancy, under the facts of this case, in approving the conclusion of the court below that the environment and living conditions to which the children would be subjected by a change of custody “would not be conducive to their best interests”.
  • Wilmot v. Wilmot 65 So. 2d 321 La. 1953
    345 , , in which the situation presented with regard to the unsuitableness of the wife was not much unlike the one in this case; , ; Willis v. Willis, 209 La.
  • Liner v. Liner 64 So. 2d 4 La. 1953
    641 , ; , ; Meyer v. Hackler, 219 La.
  • Sampognaro v. Sampognaro 63 So. 2d 11 La. 1953
  • Kieffer v. Heriard 58 So. 2d 836 La. 1952
  • Ane v. Ane 56 So. 2d 570 La. 1951