179 So. 3d 819 - Moreau v. Moreau’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 661 So. 2d 706 - Warlick v. Warlick · 877 So. 2d 1061 - Jones v. Jones · 822 So. 2d 770 - Stephens v. Stephens · Brazan v. Brazan · 879 So. 2d 335 - McKenzie v. Cuccia
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) Appellate courts will not disturb a trial court's custody award absent a manifest abuse of discretion; 2) Each child custody case must be viewed in light of its own particular set of facts and circumstances, with the paramount goal of reaching a decision that is in the best interest of the child; 3) To determine the best interest of the child, a trial court consider the child's age, the situation of the parents, and any other factor relevant to the particular case; 4) When ruling, the trial court should rely on the twelve non-exclusive factors enumerated in La. Civ. Code art. 134. The trial court has the discretion to determine the relative amount of weight to be given each factor, and is not required to analyze mechanically all of the dozen factors; rather the court should balance and weigh the factors in view of the evidence presented; 5) Application of the best interest of the child standard-codified in La. C.C. arts. 131 and 134 -requires 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; 6) Because the trial court 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A. The court may order an evaluation of a party or the child in a custody or visitation proceeding for good cause shown. The evaluation shall be made by a mental health professional selected by the parties or by the court. The court may render judgment for costs of the evaluation, or any part thereof, against any party or parties, as it may consider equitable. B. The court may order a party or the child to submit to and cooperate in the evaluation, testing, or interview by the mental health professional. The mental health professional shall provide the court and the parties with a written report. The mental health professional shall serve as the witness of the court, subject to cross-examination by a party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he implementation order shall allocate the time periods during which each parent shall have physical custody of the child so that the child is assured of frequent and continuing contact with both parents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.