Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1944–1990 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fulco v. Fulco
green
2 sentences1990The Supreme Court said: In interpreting and applying Article 157, in cases involving both the initial granting of custody and the modification of custody decrees, the courts developed several jurisprudential precepts: (1) The best interest of the children principle (the paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children); (2) The maternal preference rule (generally, it is in the best interests of the children to grant custody to the mother, unless she is morally unfit or otherwise unsuitable); (3) The change of circumstances rule (dis 1990The Supreme Court said: In interpreting and applying Article 157, in cases involving both the initial granting of custody and the modification of custody decrees, the courts developed several jurisprudential precepts: (1) The best interest of the children principle (the paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children); (2) The maternal preference rule (generally, it is in the best interests of the children to grant custody to the mother, unless she is morally unfit or otherwise unsuitable); (3) The change of circumstances rule (dis | 2 | 1986–1990 |
Creppel v. Thornton
green
1 sentence1981Creppel v. Thornton, 230 So.2d 644 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970).” In the present case, the effect of the trial court judge’s dismissal of Mrs. Ingargiola’s rule to change custody was to retain custody of the children in the paternal grandparents, pursuant to an agreement to stipulated custody in the paternal grandparents, as made by both the parents of the children at a hearing on a rule to show cause on May 18, 1979. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State in Interest of Dino
green
1 sentence1980Both counsel for Dr. Graham, as provisional tutor, and the court-appointed counsel contend that State in the Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1978) is controlling, and that the grand jury subpoenas were properly quashed. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Cabral v. Cabral
green
1 sentence1973Cabral v. Cabral, 245 So.2d 718 (La.App.4th Cir. 1971). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Succession of Le Blanc
neutral
2 sentences1944The appellant cites also the Succession of Le Blanc, 165 La. 935 , 116 So. 389 , to support his argument that when the curatrix became divorced from the interdict the curatorship became vacant, ipso facto, and hence there was no necessity for a suit to remove the curatrix. 1944The appellant cites also the Succession of Le Blanc, 165 La. 935 , 116 So. 389 , to support his argument that when the curatrix became divorced from the interdict the curatorship became vacant, ipso facto, and hence there was no necessity for a suit to remove the curatrix. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.