DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Smith, 47 So. 2d 32.

96 citing documents.

  • Wascom v. Wascom 713 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    (1950), the supreme court held that $20,000 in liquid assets will defeat a claim for permanent alimony.
  • Osborne v. Osborne 512 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    (1950), the wife's $20,000 share of the community assets, consisting mainly of bonds and interest-bearing notes, was found to preclude her from receiving permanent alimony.
  • Lopez v. Breaux 462 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    3rd Cir.1980): "The term `support' or `maintenance' has been interpreted to include food, clothing, and shelter, the basic necessities of life, , (1950), as well as reasonable and necessary transportation expenses, utility expenses (such as gas and electricity), medical and drug expenses, household expenses, and income tax liability generated by the alimony payments, "
  • Gray v. Gray 451 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Chrisman v. Chrisman 432 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Appellant cites a number of cases, , (1950) and Montz v. Montz, 253 La.
  • Vorisek v. Vorisek 423 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Loyacano v. Loyacano, supra
  • Cormier v. Cormier 422 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    (1950); White v. *721 White, (La.App.
  • Buxton v. Buxton 411 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The term ‘support’ or ‘maintenance’ has been interpreted to include food, clothing, and shelter, the basic necessities of life, , (1950), as well as reasonable and necessary transportation expenses, utility expenses (such as gas and electricity), medical and drug expenses, household expenses, and income tax liability generated by the alimony payments, ” As aforementioned, no new evide
  • Wilhite v. Wilhite 408 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    (1950), the Louisiana Supreme Court drew the following clear distinction between the rights of the claimant wife under Article 148 and those under La.C.C.
  • Breaux v. Domingues 407 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    One need not be destitute to show necessitous circumstances, , although certainly little lies between this plaintiff and destitution, in light of the present economic tenor and the state of today’s Social Security program.
  • Graham v. Metzler 402 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    329 , ; , ; George v. George, La.App., .
  • Sonfield v. Deluca 385 So. 2d 232 La. 1980
    (1950), this court found that an ex-wife's ownership of $20,000 in assets, composed of United States Government War Bonds and other interest bearing notes was sufficient to enable her to support herself without alimony.
  • Kean v. Kean 388 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Moss v. Moss 379 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    The term "support" or "maintenance" has been interpreted to include food, clothing, and shelter, the basic necessities of life, , (1950), as well as reasonable and necessary transportation expenses, utility expenses (such as gas and electricity), medical and drug expenses, household expenses, and income tax liability generated by the alimony payments
  • Billiot v. Rivere 378 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    In reference to these two articles of the Civil Code, , (1950): “Article 148 has for its purpose the enforcement of the husband’s obligation of support of his wife as it exists under Article 120 of the Civil Code, which continues during the pendency of a suit for separation from bed and board or for divorce and does not terminate until the marriage is dis
  • In Re Succession of Ziifle 378 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    2nd Cir. 1942), , (1950), and (La.App.
  • Nelson v. Nelson 377 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Sonfield v. Deluca 377 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    160, Smith v. Smith, 1950, , , and she need not sell her home when it affords her only the reasonably necessary quarters that alimony would have to supply, Nicolle v. Nicolle, La.App.
  • Laird v. Laird 363 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    [3] Ward v. Ward, La., ; , ; Russo v. Russo, 208 La.
  • Stolier v. Stolier 357 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    [2] Ward v. Ward, La., ; , ; Russo v. Russo, 208 La.
  • Holliday v. Holliday 358 So. 2d 618 La. 1978
  • Boisfontaine v. Boisfontaine 357 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Loyacano v. Loyacano 358 So. 2d 304 La. 1978
    (1950), and set aside the alimony award.
  • Meyer v. Meyer 357 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    (1950), which emphasized the “highly inequitable” nature of the situation after a community property settlement if the wife is permitted to retain her property while the husband is required to deplete his.
  • White v. White 356 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (emphasis supplied) , (1950) stated at page 35: ".
  • Hyrne v. Hyrne 351 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Golson v. Golson 351 So. 2d 100 La. 1977
  • Hodnett v. Hodnett 347 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1950), the wife had substantial assets, including cash, or bonds, or other income producing capital, and the Supreme Court merely applied the established rule that all of the wife’s assets, as well as her income, should be considered in determining whether she has sufficient means for her support.
  • LeBlanc v. Loyacano 343 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    When Mrs. Loyacano’s circumstances are considered in the light of the discussions by the Supreme Court in Frederic v. Frederic, supra, , (1950), we are required to reverse the trial judge’s award of this item.
  • Ward v. Ward 339 So. 2d 839 La. 1976
    (1950); Russo v. Russo, 208 La.
  • La Hood v. La Hood 340 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Knight v. Knight 331 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1950), the court interpreted Article 160, supra, as follows: "Article 160 makes no reference to the wife's income and takes into consideration only her means of maintenance and whether they are sufficient or not.
  • Sarpy v. Sarpy 323 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Phillpott v. Phillpott 321 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Gautreaux v. Cormier 315 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Griffin v. Griffin 316 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1950) for a reduction in the alimony of the wife.
  • Nicolle v. Nicolle 308 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    along with Montz v. Montz, 253 La.
  • Bryant v. Bryant 310 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Cortes v. Fleming 307 So. 2d 611 La. 1974
    320 , (1954); , (1950); Slagle v. Slagle, 205 La.
  • Frederic v. Frederic 302 So. 2d 903 La. 1974
  • Fulmer v. Fulmer 288 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Kees v. Kees 292 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    320 , ; , ; Comstock v. Bourge, 210 La.
  • Thomas v. Thomas 281 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Ash v. Wittenberg 278 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Hargrove v. Hargrove 272 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    (1950) and Montz v. Montz, 253 La.
  • Guarisco v. Guarisco 271 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    320 , (1954); , (1950); (La.App.
  • Hope v. Hope 271 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    138 ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
  • Fellows v. Fellows 267 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
  • Paddison v. Paddison 255 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
  • Kellogg v. Faust 254 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1950): “In Smith v. Smith, supra, the court found the wife had property, all of which was acquired by her in a partition of the community, valued at approximately $20,000.