Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dupree v. Dupree, 948 So. 2d 254.
- Succession of Clarence Donald Fox La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
- O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. v. Terry White D/B/A The Shop La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
-
Berthelot v. Berthelot
254 So. 3d 800
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 2 Cir. 12/20/06), , 256.
-
Eckstein v. Becnel
250 So. 3d 1046
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 2 Cir. 12/20/06), , 260.
-
In re Adams
247 So. 3d 1014
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
App. 2 Cir. 12/20/06), ; Havener, supra .
- Maxwell v. Maxwell 217 So. 3d 1227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
-
Fulco v. Fulco
183 So. 3d 573
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
2 Cir. 12/20/06), , and Thomson v. Thomson, 2007-988 |s(La.App.
-
Politz v. Politz
149 So. 3d 805
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
art. 2365; Dupree v. Dupree, 41,572 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/06), .
-
Tippen v. Carroll
105 So. 3d 100
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Dupree v. Dupree, 41,-572 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/06), ; Ward v. Ward, 32,617 (La.App.2d Cir.12/10/99), .
-
M. Tahir Qayyum, M.D. v. Morehouse Parish Hospital Service District
104 So. 3d 505
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Dupree v. Dupree, 41,572 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/06), ; Havener v. Havener, 29,785 (La.App.2d Cir.08/20/97), .
-
Jemison v. Timpton
38 So. 3d 1021
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
2 Cir. 12/20/06), , the trial court noted that Appellant in this case had ample "notice, time, and an opportunity to [properly place reimbursement claims at issue]."
-
Thomson v. Thomson
978 So. 2d 509
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2 Cir. 12/20/06), , where the second circuit concluded that a spouse depositing $284,008.32 in separate funds was entitled to the legal presumption of Article 2361 that the funds were used to satisfy community obligations, and the other spouse had the burden of proving that the expenditures were not for the common interest of the spous
-
Stephen Scull Thomson v. Lily Marie Steel Thomson
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2 Cir. 12/20/06), where the second circuit concluded that a spouse depositing $284,008.32 in separate funds was entitled to the legal presumption of Article 2361 that the funds were used to satisfy community obligations, and the other spouse had the burden of proving that the expenditures were not for the common interest of the spo