Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 SO3D 296 - In re L. D. B.

In re L. D. B.’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wooley v. Lucksinger · 800 So. 2d 1061 - UNITED GENERAL TITLE INS. v. Casey Title, Ltd. · In re C.B. · Kirby v. Poydras Center, LLC · 131 So. 3d 908 - Lynch-Ballard v. Lammico Insurance Agency, Inc.

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. “Appellant, K.L., and C.B., who were never married, had a child, E.B., together on July 1, 2005. The parties parted ways in 2009, when E.B. was four years old. From 2009 until 2014, the parties shared joint custody of E.B., with K.L. as the domiciliary parent and C.B. having visitation every other weekend and holidays. In 2014, after an apparent contentious custody battle, C.B. became the domiciliary parent and K.L. had visitation. After separating from K.L., C.B. married L.B. in September 2009. On February 24, 2017, L.B. and C.B. filed a petition for intrafamily adoption in Juvenile Court for the Parish of Jefferson, wherein L.B. sought to adopt E.B. The parties alleged that E.B.'s biological mother, K.L., who had not consented to the adoption and whose parental rights had not been terminated, had failed to visit or attempt to communicate with E.B. for a period of ten months and had failed to pay court ordered child support for more than one year. As such, the parties asserted that K.L.'s consent was not required for the adoption. The parties further averred it was in E.B.'s best interest that she be adopted by L.B. K.L. filed an opposition to the petition for intrafamily adoption, claiming that C.B. and L.B. had denied her contact with E.B. despite her repeated attempts since August 2015. K.L. admitted that she had been in arrears for her child support obligation, but asserted that she had made payments and continues to make efforts to reduce her arrearages and meet her obli”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the pertinent determination of the best interest of the child for purposes of the intrafamily adoption”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “decreeing the adoption of E.J.B. in favor of [L.B.],”
    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.