weighing and balancing factors in Louisiana

56 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Alfonso v. Coopergreen lactapp · 2014 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2020 2 sentences 2020App. 4 Cir. 7/16/14), 146 So.3d 796, 810 (quoting Hanks v. Hanks, 13-1442, pp. 8-9 (La. 2015C.C. arts. 131 and 134 — is “a fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in each case.” • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the" particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Alfonso v. Cooper, 14-0145, p. 22 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/16/14), 146 So.3	2	2
Lannes v. Lannesgreen lactapp · 2008 · cited in 4 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018 2 sentences 2018C.C. arts. 132 and 134, is a 'fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented.' " Hilkirk v. Johnson , 2015-0577, p. 34 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/23/15), 183 So.3d 731 quoting Lannes v. Lannes , 2007-0345, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119 , 1121. 2015C.C. arts. 132 and 134, is a,“fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented.” , Lannes v. Lannes, 07-0345, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 .	1	4
Evans v. Lungringreen la · 1998 · cited in 3 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2017 2 sentences 2017C.C. arts. 131 and 134—is “a fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in each case.” •' .“Because the trial judge is in the , best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court .absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” When a party seeks to change custody entered pursuant to a consent 2006Evans v. Lungrin, supra. In determining the best interest of a child in custody cases, there must be a weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in respective competing parents on the basis of evidence presented in each particular case.	1	3
Hanks v. Hanksgreen lactapp · 2014 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015C.C. arts. 131 and 134 — is “a fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in each case.” • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the" particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Alfonso v. Cooper, 14-0145, p. 22 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/16/14), 146 So.3 2014C.C. arts. 131 and 134 — is “a fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in each case.” • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Hanks v. Hanks, 13-1442, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/16/14), 140 So.3d	1	2
McKenzie v. Cucciagreen lactapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 (citing Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,-792 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 307 ; and Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 ). • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Palazzolo, 08-0075 at p. 35, 10 So.3d at 768 ; McKenzie v. Cuccia, 04-0112, pp. 3-4 (La	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (25)

Case	Cited	Years
Cooper v. Cooper green lactapp · 1991 2 sentences 2010Hoskins v. Hoskins, 36,031 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/5/02), 814 So.2d 773 ; Cooper v. Cooper, 579 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991). 2002Cooper v. Cooper, 579 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1991); McKinley v. McKinley, 25,365 (La.	8	1992–2010
Romanowski v. Romanowski green lactapp · 2004 2 sentences 2014Romanowski v. Romanowski 03-0124 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/23/04), 873 So.2d 656, 659 ; Street v. May, 35,589 (La.App. 2nd Cir.12/5/01), 803 So.2d 312, 315 . 2011Romanowski v. Romanowski, 03-124 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/23/04) , 873 So.2d 656 .	6	2007–2014
Martello v. Martello green lactapp · 2007 2 sentences 2013Martello v. Martello, 06-0594 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/23/07) , 960 So.2d 186, 191 . 2011Martello v. Martello, 2006-0594 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/23/07), 960 So.2d 186, 191 .	5	2008–2013
Hoskins v. Hoskins green lactapp · 2002 2 sentences 2010Hoskins v. Hoskins, 36,031 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/5/02), 814 So.2d 773 ; Cooper v. Cooper, 579 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991). 2009Hoskins v. Hoskins, 36,031 (La.App. 2d Cir.4/5/02), 814 So.2d 773 .	5	2005–2010
Windham v. Windham neutral lactapp · 1993 2 sentences 1995Barnes v. Cason, supra ; Windham v. Windham, 616 So.2d 276 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 875 (La.1993). 1995Windham v. Windham, 616 So.2d 276 (La.	4	1994–1995
Cook v. Cook green lactapp · 2006 2 sentences 2014App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 (citing Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,-792 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 307 ; and Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 ). • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Palazzolo, 08-0075 at p. 35, 10 So.3d at 768 ; McKenzie v. Cuccia, 04-0112, pp. 3-4 (La 2008Rutledge, supra; Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App.2d Cir.1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 .	3	2007–2014
Street v. May green lactapp · 2001 2 sentences 2014Romanowski v. Romanowski 03-0124 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/23/04), 873 So.2d 656, 659 ; Street v. May, 35,589 (La.App. 2nd Cir.12/5/01), 803 So.2d 312, 315 . 2006Additionally, custody awards to nonparents are governed by La.Civ.Code art. 133, which provides that, if custody is not to be awarded to either parent, “the court shall award custody to another person with whom the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment, or otherwise to any other person able to provide an adequate and stable environment.” The best interest inquiry “is a fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in each case.” Street, 803 So.2d at 315 .	3	2004–2014
McKinley v. McKinley green lactapp · 1994 2 sentences 2002McKinley v. McKinley, 25,365 (La.App.2d Cir.1/19/94); 631 So.2d 45 . 2001Cooper v. Cooper, 579 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991); McKinley v. McKinley, 25,365 (La.App.2d Cir.1/19/94), 631 So.2d 45 .	3	1999–2002
Warlick v. Warlick green lactapp · 1995 2 sentences 2001Warlick v. Warlick, 27,389 (La.App. 2d Cir.9/29/95), 661 So.2d 706 . 1997Warlick v. Warlick, 27,389 (La.App.2d Cir. 9/29/95), 661 So.2d 706 .	3	1997–2001
Lewis v. Lewis neutral lactapp · 2018 2 sentences 2019App. 4 Cir. 10/3/18), 255 So.3d 1216 , 1219. 2019App. 4 Cir. 10/3/18), 255 So.3d 1216 , 1219.	2	2019–2019
Palazzolo v. Mire green lactapp · 2009 2 sentences 2018The factors outlined within Article 134 have been construed to be nonexclusive, "and the trial court has the discretion to determine the relative amount of weight to be given to each factor." Hilkirk , 2015-0577, p. 34 , 183 So.3d at 740 citing Hanks v. Hanks , 2013-1442, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/16/14), 140 So.208, 215 ( citing Palazzo v. Mire ,2008-0075, p. 34 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/7/9), 10 So.3d 748 , 768 ). 2014App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 (citing Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,-792 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 307 ; and Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 ). • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Palazzolo, 08-0075 at p. 35, 10 So.3d at 768 ; McKenzie v. Cuccia, 04-0112, pp. 3-4 (La	2	2014–2018
C.M.J. v. L.M.C., Wife of C.M.J. green la · 2014 2 sentences 2017“The best interest of the child standard is a fact-finding intensive inquiry that requires the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented.” C.M.J. v. L.M.C., 14-1119, p. 18 (La. 10/15/14), 156 So.3d 16, 33 . 2015C.M.J. v. L.M.C., 14-1119, p. 24 (La.10/15/14), 156 So.3d 16, 33 .	2	2015–2017
Hebert v. Schexnayder neutral lactapp · 2013 2 sentences 2015The “best interest of the child” test is a fact-intensive inquiry, requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing \| .¡custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in the case. 1 Hebert v. Schexnayder, 2012-1414 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/15/13), 113 So.3d 1097, 1100-1101 . 2014Hebert v. Schexnayder, 12-1414 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/15/13) , 113 So.3d 1097, 1100-01 .	2	2014–2015
Windham v. Windham neutral la · 1993 2 sentences 1995Barnes v. Cason, supra ; Windham v. Windham, 616 So.2d 276 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 875 (La.1993). 1994Windham v. Windham, 616 So.2d 276 (La.App.2d Cir.1993), writ denied 620 So.2d 875 (La.1993).	2	1994–1995
Moreau v. Moreau neutral lactapp · 2015 1 sentence 2018Moreau v. Moreau, 15-0564, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/18/15), 179 So.3d 819 , 823 (citations omitted).	1	2018–2018
Hilkirk v. Johnson green lactapp · 2015 2 sentences 2018C.C. arts. 132 and 134, is a 'fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented.' " Hilkirk v. Johnson , 2015-0577, p. 34 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/23/15), 183 So.3d 731 quoting Lannes v. Lannes , 2007-0345, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119 , 1121. 2018The factors outlined within Article 134 have been construed to be nonexclusive, "and the trial court has the discretion to determine the relative amount of weight to be given to each factor." Hilkirk , 2015-0577, p. 34 , 183 So.3d at 740 citing Hanks v. Hanks , 2013-1442, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/16/14), 140 So.208, 215 ( citing Palazzo v. Mire ,2008-0075, p. 34 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/7/9), 10 So.3d 748 , 768 ).	1	2018–2018
Gary v. LeBlanc neutral lactapp · 2017 2 sentences 2018Gary v. LeBlanc , 16-1054 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/17) , 222 So.3d 784 . 2018Gary v. LeBlanc , 16-1054 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/17) , 222 So.3d 784 .	1	2018–2018
Thompson v. Thompson green la · 1988 1 sentence 2014App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 (citing Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,-792 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 307 ; and Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 ). • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Palazzolo, 08-0075 at p. 35, 10 So.3d at 768 ; McKenzie v. Cuccia, 04-0112, pp. 3-4 (La	1	2014–2014
Watts v. Watts green lactapp · 2009 1 sentence 2014App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 (citing Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,-792 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 307 ; and Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 ). • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Palazzolo, 08-0075 at p. 35, 10 So.3d at 768 ; McKenzie v. Cuccia, 04-0112, pp. 3-4 (La	1	2014–2014
Rutledge v. Rutledge neutral lactapp · 2006 1 sentence 2014App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 (citing Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,-792 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 307 ; and Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 ). • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Palazzolo, 08-0075 at p. 35, 10 So.3d at 768 ; McKenzie v. Cuccia, 04-0112, pp. 3-4 (La	1	2014–2014
Foshee v. Foshee green lactapp · 2013 1 sentence 2014App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 977 So.2d 1119, 1121 (citing Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,-792 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 307 ; and Cook v. Cook, 40,572 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/25/06), 920 So.2d 981 ). • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Palazzolo, 08-0075 at p. 35, 10 So.3d at 768 ; McKenzie v. Cuccia, 04-0112, pp. 3-4 (La	1	2014–2014
Stephens v. Smith neutral lactapp · 1997 1 sentence 2013Stephens v. Smith, 30,028 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/97), 704 So.2d 943, 945 .	1	2013–2013
Hobbs v. Hobbs green lactapp · 2007 1 sentence 2009Luplow v. Luplow, supra. See also Hobbs v. Hobbs, 42,353 (La.App. 2d Cir.8/15/07), 962 So.2d 1148 . 12gln determining the best interest of a child in custody cases, there must be a weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in respective competing parents on the basis of evidence presented in each particular case.	1	2009–2009
Hill v. Hill green lactapp · 2001 1 sentence 2001Hill v. Hill, 34,104 (La.App.2d Cir.1/24/01), 777 So.2d 1263 ; McIntosh v. McIntosh, supra ; Rogers v. Stockmon, supra .	1	2001–2001
Boyd v. Boyd green lactapp · 1994 1 sentence 1995Boyd v. Boyd, 26,292 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/7/94), 647 So.2d 414 .	1	1995–1995

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:335 (24) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:315 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:315.9 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:331 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:315.8 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.16 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:361 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:364 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:315.11 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:315.21 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

LA 56 (1992–2020) AL 4 (2005–2010)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check