DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bradford, 735 So. 2d 619.

21 citing documents.

  • Whitney Nicole Cochran v. Stephen Carl Loewer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    5/26/99), (“Normally, the welfare of children is best served by leaving them together, so they can have the full benefit of companionship and affection.”).
  • Rozetta Mizell v. Juston Stone La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    5/26/99), and Sanders v. Sanders, 05-803 (La.App.
  • State v. Kennedy 73 So. 3d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Bradford, 99-0996 (La.5/14/99), ...
  • State v. Turner 50 So. 3d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Bradford, 99-0996 (La.5/14/99), ..
  • Jones v. Willis 996 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Howze v. Howze, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/26/99), ; Street v. May, supra .
  • Thomas Neil Guidry, Jr. v. Theresa Kaiser Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    5/26/99), which held that, when feasible, a court should shape its orders in child custody cases to maintain family solidarity.
  • Guidry v. Guidry 979 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Neil Guidry argues that the trial court ignored the rule about family solidarity and cites Howze v. Howze, 99-852 (La.5/26/99), , which held that, when feasible, a court should shape its orders in child custody cases to maintain family solidarity.
  • State v. Connolly 930 So. 2d 951 La. 2006
    State v. Bradford, 99-0996 (La.5/14/99), (setting aside order of recusal of judge employed as an assistant district attorney at the time prosecution was instituted against defendant on grounds that there was "no evidence to support her recusal").
  • Sanders v. Sanders 923 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Generally, “the welfare of children is best served by leaving them together, so they can have the full benefit of companionship and affection.” Ho wze v. Howze, 99-0852, p. 3 (La.5/26/99), ; Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La.
  • Walker v. Walker 880 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Howze v. Howze, XXXX-XXXX (La.05/26/99), .
  • Ramona Ann Marcentel Winzor v. Robert Wade Winzor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Winzor v. Winzor 856 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Howze v. Howze, 99-852 (La.5/26/99), .
  • Mills v. Hardy 842 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In Howze v. Howze, 99-0852 p. 3 (La.5/26/99), , the supreme court cited Tiffee with approval before noting that a four year age difference between the children “is not so large as to preclude the children from sharing some similar interests and from deriving great benefit and comfort from living together as part of a family.” The supreme court, in unifying c
  • MOBILE EXPLORATION v. Certain Underwriters 837 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    1 Cir. 12/28/98), , vacated on other grounds, 99-0852 (La.5/26/99), ; Salassi v. State, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 96-0321, p. 6 (La.App.
  • Hoskins v. Hoskins 814 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Howze v. Howze, 99-0852 (La.5/26/99), .
  • Street v. May 803 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    In Howze v. Howze, 99-0852 (La.5/26/99), , which involved full-blooded siblings, the supreme court described the separation of children in a family as a custodial disposition that courts seek to avoid and that when feasible, a court should shape its orders to maintain family solidarity.
  • Richardson v. RICHARDSON (BLACKMAR) 802 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    381, 387-388 , (1969); Howze v. Howze, 99-0852, p. 3 (La.5/26/99), ; (La.App.
  • Kyle v. Kyle 780 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    In support of her position, Mrs. Martin cites Howze v. Howze, 99-0852 (La.5/26/99), , and Roberie v. Roberie, supra , both of which were cited, but distinguished, by the trial court.
  • Shaffer v. Shaffer 808 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Howze v. Howze, 99-0852, p. 3 (La.5/26/99), , 621.
  • Guillot v. Munn 756 So. 2d 290 La. 2000
    art. 131; Howze v. Howze, 99-0852, p. 3 (La.5/26/99), .
  • Roberie v. Roberie 749 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Howze v. Howze, 99-0852 (La.5/26/99), .