Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thomas v. Thomas, 440 So. 2d 879.

13 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Andre J. Davis 221 So. 3d 28 La. 2017
Petty, 560 So.2d at 631 ( (La.App.
State v. Davis 176 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Code does not define “open concubinage”, but three cases have considered its meaning; (La.App.
Booth v. Samuels 712 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
4th Cir.1990), which thoroughly discussed the development of the term “open concubinage.” (La.App.
McMahon v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 596 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Scott v. Scott 579 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
in a state of affairs approximating marriage.” writ denied.
Petty v. Petty 560 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
The Civil Code does not define "open concubinage", but three cases have considered its meaning; (La.App.
Theriot v. Theriot 546 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Hullaby v. Mosely 505 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Succession of Bacot 502 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Succession of Green v. Mears 499 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Succession of Payne v. Pigott 459 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Succession of Lamy 454 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
ning by the word ‘open’ that the concubinage should be so public as to be practically avowed, not necessarily by word, but at any rate by *292 unambiguous, unequivocal conduct; that the relations must be such that, when sought to be made the basis of judicial action, no odious inquisitions might be necessary, and no nice poising of testimony, as in this case.” (La.App.
Gray v. Gray 451 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
NOTES [1] at 884, note 2 (La.App.