La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:431 (2026)

Repealed by Acts 1991, No. 235, §17, eff. January. 1, 1992.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§431. Repealed by Acts 1991, No. 235, §17, eff. January. 1, 1992.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1956–1984 · leading case: Bertrand v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 333 So. 2d 322 (La. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bertrand v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 333 So. 2d 322 (La. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “The court held that in accordance with LSA-R.S. 9:431 and 9:432 consent of the parents to the adoption is not a necessary requisite to the final decree.”
In Re McK, 444 So. 2d 1362 (La. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “The Department notes that under LSA-R.S. 9:431 the interlocutory decree would have become null and void on May 20, 1983 (the same date the judgment in this cause was signed) because of appellants' failure to file a petition for a final decree of adoption within two years of the…”
In Re Adoption of Giambrone, 262 So. 2d 566 (La. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “LSA-R.S. 9:431 provides the requirements for revocation of an interlocutory decree which reads: "§ 431.”
Roy v. Speer, 192 So. 2d 554 (La. 1966). “This court lias not so far been called upon to determine the effect of Act 268 of 1960, amending R.S. 9:431, on this jurisprudence with respect to continuing consent of the parents up until the final judgment in adoption matters.”
In Re Martin, 357 So. 2d 893 (La. Ct. App. 1978). “R.S. 9:431 that speaks of the withdrawal of consent by the parent who has acknowledged the child under C.”
Spell v. Bourque, 245 So. 2d 525 (La. Ct. App. 1971). “And, LSA-R.S. 9:431 provides that “at any time before the entry of.”
Hargrave v. Gaspard, 419 So. 2d 918 (La. 1982). “R.S. 9:431 provides that at any time before entry of the final decree of adoption, the court for good cause may revoke its interlocutory decree either on its own motion or on the motion of the department or on the motion of the petitioner or "any person interested in the child.”
In re Naturalization of Glover, 207 F. Supp. 841 (E.D. La. 1962). “However, it is not clear that an uncompromisingly strict interpretation of the Federal Statute is justified. There is little in the legislative history to indicate the intention of the lawmakers.”
Woods v. Collins, 274 So. 2d 466 (La. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “To be construed on this appeal is the second paragraph of LSA-R.S. 9:431, which reads as follows: “At any time before the entry of the final decree of adoption the court for good cause, other than mere withdrawal of consent by legitimate parent or parents, by the mother or by…”
In re Amorello, 85 So. 2d 883 (La. 1956). “The Renards contend that they have a right to institute this action as persons interested in the child under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 9:431 and that it is for the best interest of the child that she be placed in their custody and that they be allowed to adopt her.”
Schilling v. White, 180 So. 2d 225 (La. Ct. App. 1965). “The primary issue presented herein, and •one requiring our most careful consideration, is, as ably stated by the trial judge: Is it to the best interest of this child that she be adopted by the petitioner? Bearing directly on this question is LSA-R.S. 9:431 and 9:432, subd. B,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.