DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Whipple v. Whipple, 424 So. 2d 263.

16 citing documents.

  • Sharp v. Sharp 939 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Wascom , 96-0125 at p. 4, 691 So.2d at 681 ; (La.App.
  • Goldberg v. Goldberg 698 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Richard v. Richard 577 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Wester v. Wester 564 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Hardee v. Hardee 551 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Mouton v. Mouton, supra, at 530 , (La.App.
  • Vassallo v. Vassallo 540 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    431 (1938); (3rd Cir.1983); (1st Cir.1982) writ denied
  • Els v. Els 538 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Fairchild v. Fairchild 537 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Mouton v. Mouton 514 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Lindner v. Lindner 506 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    This Court follows the reasoning in the case of Whipple vs Whipple, , which permits a court to consider the earning capacity of both parties in determining alimony pendente lite.
  • Braswell v. Braswell 494 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Gravois v. Gravois 495 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Chaudoir v. Chaudoir 446 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Clayton v. Clayton 431 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Arrendell, supra, (La.App.
  • Whipple v. Whipple 426 So. 2d 179 La. 1983
    Parish of East Baton Rouge, Nineteenth Judicial District Court, .
  • Watkins v. Watkins 424 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    which was consolidated for hearing with this instant case, holds that the claimant spouse’s earning capacity is one factor which may be considered by the trial court in determining whether alimony pendente lite should be awarded to that spouse.