Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dupree v. Dupree, 948 So. 2d 254.

13 citing documents.

  • 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