DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pisciotto v. Crucia, 71 So. 2d 226.

65 citing documents.

  • Marilyn Williams Hedlesky v. Steven Hedlesky La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    So.2d 226 (1954); Gehrkin v. Gehrkin, 216 La.
  • Hedlesky v. Hedlesky 166 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    (1954); Gehrkin v. Gehrkin, 216 La.
  • Weldon v. Weldon 737 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Hawkins v. Hawkins 592 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    The law applicable to this issue is found in a , (1954), in which the wife sued her former husband for past due alimony to which she was entitled pursuant to a divorce judgment.
  • Robinson v. Robinson 561 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    (1954) our Supreme Court, citing Civil Code Article 232, [3] held that "a discharge from the obligation to pay [alimony] may be granted only ...
  • Hogan v. Hogan 549 So. 2d 267 La. 1989
    (1954); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Rhodes v. Rhodes 544 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Guidry v. Guidry 535 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    (1954); Gehrkin v. Gehrkin, 216 La.
  • McDonald v. McDonald 520 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The law applicable to issues of this nature can be found in a
  • Cabaniss v. Courrege 482 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Clooney v. Clooney 446 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    862 , (1954); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Bagby v. Dillon 434 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    This Court in Halcomb and earlier in Pisciotto [v. Crucia, , ] engrafted a jurisprudential rule onto the alimony statutes to the effect that absent a lawsuit to alter an alimony decree the plaintiff in a rule for arrearages would be entitled to the full amount under the prior judgment up to three years prior to the rule.1" *661 Based on the above quoted language
  • Meche v. Meche 430 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Johnson v. Johnson 430 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    (1954); Gehrkin v. Gehrkin, 215 La.
  • McManus v. McManus 428 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1st Cir.1979); , Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • McGovern v. Tatman 410 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    “ , (1954), the question was answered as follows: ‘The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes presc
  • Hendershot v. Hendershot 407 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    (1954); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Lachney v. Lachney 399 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Moore v. Braddock 391 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Dauzat v. Dauzat 391 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    (1954) the court held with regard to alimony ordered for support of the wife and children: "...
  • Marshall v. Marshall 390 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Dubroc v. Dubroc 388 So. 2d 377 La. 1980
    (1954); Gehrkin v. Gehrkin, 216 La.
  • Morasco v. Metcalf 381 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Appellee in the instant case, Herbert E. Metcalf, , (1954).
  • Blankenship v. Blankenship 382 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 380 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Sizeler v. Sizeler 375 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    (1954), stated that the jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony is in the nature of property and is protected against alteration or annulment ".
  • Seifert v. Seifert 374 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1954); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Thompson v. Courville 372 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    art. 3945; , (1954); (La.
  • Vernon v. Leger 363 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    a child support case, the Louisiana Supreme Court, , (1954), stated: “ ‘The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes prescribed by law, Louisiana Code
  • Wisdom v. Wisdom 356 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    (1954); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Wollman v. GRAVAL 355 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Art. 3945; , (1954); (La.App.
  • Graval v. Graval 355 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Art. 3945; , (1954); (La.App.
  • Halcomb v. Halcomb 352 So. 2d 1013 La. 1977
    (1954), the question was answered as follows: "The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes presc
  • Halcomb v. Halcomb 343 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Siepman v. Hotz 346 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1954); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Hughes v. Whitehead 329 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Moreover, , , this court held that the right to receive back alimony in a lump sum is not waived by the divorced wife’s failure to make periodic demands on her former husband.
  • Whitt v. Vauthier 316 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    art. 3945; , (1954); (La.App.
  • Wallace v. Wallace 316 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
  • Collette v. Olivier 309 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    art. 3945; , (1954); (La.App.
  • Mertens v. Mertens 308 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    art. 3945; , (1954); (La.App.
  • Miller v. Miller 308 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Theriot v. Melancon 311 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    art. 3945; , (1954); (La.App.
  • Cortes v. Fleming 307 So. 2d 611 La. 1974
    (1954); Wainwright v. Wainwright, 217 La.
  • McConnell v. Theriot 295 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    App. 3rd Cir. 1964); , ; and Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Vinson v. Vinson 292 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    Appellant contends the trial judge erred, citing two jurisprudential rules to support her position, namely (1) once alimony payments accrue, they acquire the status of a property right of which the adjudicatee may not be divested ( , [1954]); and (2) an alimony award remains in full force and effect until the judgment debtor applies to the court for and receives a modification.
  • Simon v. Calvert 289 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    art. 3945; , (1954); (La.App.
  • Eaglin v. Eaglin 306 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    Our jurisprudence has established a firm rule that a judgment for child support remains in full effect in favor of the party to whom it is awarded, until the party held liable applies to the court and obtains a modification, , (1954); (La.App.
  • Odum v. Odum 273 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    As authority for the above position, the trial judge cited Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, La.App., ; Van Morkhoven v. Kleiner, La.App., ; Elchinger v. Elchinger, La.App., ; Dupuis v. Patin, La.App., ; Dunham v. Dunham, La.App., ; , 71 So.
  • Duplechan v. Duplechan 270 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La.
  • Adams v. Adams 243 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    Williams v. Williams, 211 La.