10453 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Viser v. Viser

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · Filed October 28, 1965 · 179 So. 2d 673

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 28, 1979 378 So. 2d 199

Cited by

Gros v. Gros 463 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
McKenna v. Steen 422 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Billiot v. Rivere 378 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Mosley v. Mosley 348 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Ward v. Ward 332 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Favrot v. Barnes 332 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Mendoza v. Mendoza 310 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
McMath v. Masters 198 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Viser v. Viser 179 So. 2d 672

Opinion text

179 So.2d 673 (1965) Louise Powell VISER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry L. VISER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10453. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. October 28, 1965. Love, Rigby, & Donovan, Shreveport, for appellant. Leroy H. Scott, Jr., Shreveport, for appellee. Before HARDY, GLADNEY and BOLIN, JJ. GLADNEY, Judge. This appeal is from a judgment denying appellant, Harry L. Viser, revocation or suspension of a decree of the trial court rendered March 31, 1965 ordering the payment of alimony pendente lite. The relief sought by appellant is predicated on inability to obtain employment. The issues *674 raised therein are entirely of a factual nature. A judgment was rendered on March 31, 1965, ordering defendant, Harry L. Viser, to pay to his wife, Louise Powell Viser, $300.00 per month as alimony pendente lite. The defendant appealed from that judgment and the review thereof by this court has been decided in Viser v. Viser, 179 So.2d 672 , No. 10,427 on the docket of this court this day decided. We are of the opinion that the issues raised by this appeal are governed by our decision in case No. 10,427, wherein we held the matter presented and decided by the trial court was discretionary and there was no abuse of authority by the trial judge. For the reasons assigned the judgment is affirmed at appellant's cost.