Cited by

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

96 citing documents.

Caldwell v. Gilbert 253 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
20 , ; Smith v. Smith [ , ]."
Johnson v. McAfee 249 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1950); Fortier v. Gelpi, supra; Slagle v. Slagle, 205 La.
Wagner v. Bulliard 248 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
While we would probably consider the $20,029.25 , (1950), and its progeny, we do not think that $10,000 is sufficient.
Worley v. Worley 247 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Doughty v. Doughty 244 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Malone v. Malone 243 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
Garrett v. Garrett 229 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
The court reviewed the controlling cases on this subject, , , and held that a wife who had a home valued at $18,000.00, stock valued at $6,-000.00, and $6,000.00 in cash, could not be said to be without sufficient means for her maintenance.
Leavines v. Leavines 224 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Brenan v. Montz 221 So. 2d 40 La. 1969
Relying on the jurisprudence of this court that the wife holding assets of $20,000 , , relator contends that his former wife is not entitled to alimony under the provisions of L.S.A.-Civil Code Article 160 as amended 1 as she has unencumbered property valued in excess of $20,000, $6,000 of which is in cash.
Morace v. Morace 220 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
320 , ; , ; Comstock v. Bourge, 210 La.
Hardy v. Brodi 214 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Net cash value of insurance policies 6,582,21 Total $38,750.08 Appellant contends that as a matter of law a divorced wife owning net assets having a value of approximately $39,000.00 has sufficient “means” for her support and precludes her from being entitled to alimony for her personal support, citing Smith v. *235 Smith, , ; St.
Cox v. Cox 199 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
While no written reasons were assigned by the trial court for its decision we believe this requirement was based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smith v. Smith (1950) , .
McMath v. Masters 198 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
With reference to these two articles of the Civil Code, , (1950): "There is a marked distinction between the objects and the purposes of the two articles as pointed out in the case of Player v. Player, 162 La.
Burris v. Burris 197 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
(1950) the Supreme Court defined the word “maintenance”, which we have heretofore concluded means the same as “support”, to mean “primarily food, shelter and clothing”.
Oster v. Rittiner 181 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Antis v. Derussy 175 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
* * * Therefore, with regard to determining whether Mrs. Loe has ‘sufficient means for her maintenance’, the real question relates to the approximately $5,000 -she received -in settlement of the community subsequent to the judgment awarding her alimony.” The defendant husband in the Loe case, as in the instant case, , (1950).
Cordaro v. Cordaro 168 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
246 , (1950) the Supreme Court pointed out the difference between the provisions of LSA-C.C.
Vedrenne v. Vedrenne 163 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
In construing this article the Supreme Court, , , denied a divorced wife alimony because she had $20,000.00 which produced $35.00 a month income; with the proviso that, when she did not have a sufficient amount left she could reapply for alimony.
Anderson v. Anderson 158 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
320 , ; , ; Comstock v. Bourge, 210 La.
Lucas v. Lucas 157 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
310 , ; , ; Matheny v. Matheny, 205 La.
Fruehan v. Fruehan 153 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Misko v. Capuder 147 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
869 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Hicks v. Hicks 147 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
221 , ; , ; Fortier v. Gelpi, 195 La.
St. Julien v. LeBlanc 146 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Roberts v. Roberts 145 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Shapiro v. Shapiro 141 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
However, here we find no necessity to review or pass upon the question of whether or not plaintiff's "means", and by this we refer to the $3,000.00 in cash which she possessed plus the $10.00 per month salary she earned, , , and later cases, all concerned with alimony after divorce under Article 160.
Loe v. Loe 131 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Plaintiff's counsel strenuously contends that the case of Smith v. Smith, 1950, , , answers this query favorably to plaintiff husband.
Simon v. Simon 127 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
138 , at page 140; , , we said ‘ * * * 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.
Rader v. Pegram 126 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
138 ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Bilello v. Bilello 121 So. 2d 728 La. 1960
es the conditions under which the wife has a right to receive alimony pendente lite, and reads: “If the wife has not a sufficient income for her maintenance pending the suit for separation from bed and board or for divorce, the judge shall allow her, whether she appears as plaintiff or defendant, a sum for her support, porportioned to her needs and to the means of her husband.” , , this Court stated that: “Article 148 has for its purpose the enforcement of the husband’s obligation of support of
Vicknair v. Vicknair 112 So. 2d 702 La. 1959
905 , ; , ; Creel v. Creel, 218 La.
St. Martin v. Lewis 109 So. 2d 81 La. 1959
In numerous cases it has been resolved, , ; Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
Rabun v. Rabun 95 So. 2d 635 La. 1957
In numerous cases it has been resolved, , , Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
Rabun v. Rabun 95 So. 2d 635 La. 1957
In numerous cases it has been resolved, , , Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
Jones v. Jones 93 So. 2d 917 La. 1957
869 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Jones v. Jones 93 So. 2d 917 La. 1957
869 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Murphy v. Murphy 87 So. 2d 4 La. 1956
*853 “Article 148 1 has for its purpose the enforcement of the husband’s obligation of support of his wife as it exists under Article 120 of the [LSA-] Civil Code, 2 which continues during the pendency of a suit for separation from bed and board or for divorce and does not terminate until the
Howell v. Howell 85 So. 2d 885 La. 1956
Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
Kaighen v. Kaighen 85 So. 2d 45 La. 1956
Stabler v. Stabler 75 So. 2d 12 La. 1954
In his Reasons for Judgment, the District Judge stated that evidence introduced on the trial showed that the wife owns property valued in excess of $20,000; he held, therefore, , , i. e., that a wife who is in possession of property and assets valued at $20,000' cannot be said to be without sufficient means for her maintenance and therefore entitled to alimony under the provisions of Article 160 of the LSA-Civil Code.
Brown v. Harris 72 So. 2d 746 La. 1954
869 , ; , ; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
Hillard v. Hillard 73 So. 2d 442 La. 1954
It is to be noted here that both her needs and the means of the husband are to be taken into consideration in determining the sum to be allowed.” , .
Richards v. Garth 65 So. 2d 109 La. 1953
Salassi v. Salassi 57 So. 2d 684 La. 1952
He contends that in any event, , , Mrs. Salassi is not entitled to any alimony for herself, since she received a home under the community partition in which she lives rent free, and from which she derives a monthly income of $100.
Salassi v. Salassi 57 So. 2d 684 La. 1952
He contends that -in any event, , , Mrs. Salassi is not entitled to any alimony for herself, since she received a home under the community partition in which she lives rent free, and from which she derives a monthly income of $100.
Babin v. Babin 55 So. 2d 888 La. 1951
vested with this refund under the compromise settlement of April 28, 1950, above referred to, wherein the wife re *126 ceived $4,713.75 in cash or its equivalent and the defendant received $1,624.19 in cash or its equivalent (the wife, in addition, relinquished her claim that certain race horses belonged to the community) ; and further, (2) , , the wife, upon receipt of the $4,713.75 in settlement of the community, ceased to be entitled to any further alimony unless and until she could show that