Pontiff v. Behrens
Also decided on this docket: La., February 17, 1989 537 So. 2d 1159; La., June 3, 1988 528 So. 2d 1002; La., February 12, 1988 519 So. 2d 134; La., June 3, 1988 528 So. 2d 1002
Pontiff v. Behrens, 536 So. 2d 424 (La. 1989).
The holding in the court’s own words
After considering the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the trial court’s decision was not based on any manifest error of fact or error of law.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Johnson v. Sullivan 545 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
- In re Pontiff 537 So. 2d 1159 La. 1989
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- In re J.M.P. 528 So. 2d 1002
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. Pursuant to this Court’s decree in In re Mr. & Mrs. J.M.P., Applying for Adoption, 528 So.2d 1002 (La.1988), the trial court conducted a new hearing on the best interest of the child and rendered an inter *425 locutory decree of adoption of the child by petitioners, Mr. & Mrs. J.M.P., reserving to them the right to petition for a final adoption in due course. The natural mother has applied to this court seeking relief as a dissatisfied party as authorized by our decree retaining jurisdiction of this case for that purpose. After considering the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the trial court’s decision was not based on any manifest error of fact or error of law. Accordingly, the natural mother’s application for relief is denied. CALOGERO, J., dissents. LEMMON, J., not participating.