Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 So. 3d 672 - Lowe v. Lowe

196 So. 3d 672 - Lowe v. Lowe’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 708 So. 2d 731 - Evans v. Lungrin · 492 So. 2d 1193 - Bergeron v. Bergeron · 27 So. 3d 1024 - Semmes v. Semmes · 1 So. 3d 788 - Slaughter v. Slaughter · Robert v. Robert

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “) and Lowe v. Lowe , 51,588 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So.3d 670 (" Lowe II "), 244 So.3d 670 , both stemming from Brian's initial filing for divorce and custody of the children. The background facts were articulated in Lowe I and are as follows: [Brian and Yadaira] were married on September 3, 2005 in Orlando, Florida. They had two children, L.E.L., who was born on July 18, 2009, and L.G.L., who was born on November 23, 2011. During the marriage, the parties moved to several states in connection with Brian's administrative career with various professional sports teams. Eventually, the parties established their matrimonial domicile in the state of Tennessee. In 2013, Brian was terminated from an administrative position in Memphis, Tennessee. Having no financial resources, in February 2014, the parties and their young children moved to Farmerville, Louisiana, to live with Brian's father. At the time of the move, Brian was hoping to gain employment as the athletic director at Grambling State University ("GSU”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “), this Court was concerned with Brian's capacity to provide the minor children with their basic material needs, independent of his father, and remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine which party should be awarded domiciliary status of the children. On remand, the trial court again awarded Brian domiciliary status. For the following reasons, we respectfully reverse the ruling of the trial court. FACTS In Lowe I , the pertinent facts were as follows: The plaintiff, Brian Lowe (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Brian had a history of physically, verbally and emotionally abusing her.”
    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.