Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hayes v. Hayes, 73 So. 2d 179.

38 citing documents.

Tidwell v. Tidwell 152 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Carolyn Dauzat Marcotte v. Thomas Ernest Marcotte La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Romain’s testimony about what they were doing at the camp the night Mrs. Marcotte took the photographs of them “did not match.” Although adultery may be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence, is that “the circumstantial proof in these cases must be so convincing as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt.” (La.App.
Marcotte v. Marcotte 886 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Romain’s testimony about what they were doing at the camp the night Mrs. Marcotte took the photographs of them “did not match.” Although adultery may be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence, , (1954), is that “the circumstantial proof in these cases must be so convincing as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt.” (La.App.
Crawford v. RYAN'S FAM. STEAK HOUSES, INC. 741 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Sibley v. Sibley 693 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
[3] -78 , Stewart, 422 So.2d at 1371-72 ; Breaux, 323 So.2d at 488 .
Larocca v. Larocca 597 So. 2d 1000 La. 1992
The court stated that "circumstantial proof of adultery `must be so convincing as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt.'" Hermes, 287 So.2d at 791 ( , (1954)).
Zeringue v. Zeringue 479 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Weaver v. Weaver, supra ; Seal v. Seal, supra ; , (1954).
Weaver v. Weaver 438 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Slaughter v. Slaughter 436 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
3rd Cir.1977); , (1954).
Seal v. Seal 421 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Boudreaux v. Boudreaux 407 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
App. 3rd Cir. 1977); , (1954).
Billiot v. Rivere 378 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
112 , ; Hayes *515 v. Hayes, , ; Withers v. Withers, La.App., ; Daigle v. Daigle, La.App., ; Morris v. Morris, La.App., .” 323 So.2d at 488 .
Cade v. Cade 351 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Soroe v. Soroe 334 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Breaux v. Breaux 323 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
112 , ; , ; Withers v. Withers, La.App., ; Daigle v. Daigle, La.App., ; Morris v. Morris, La.App., .
Bynum v. Bynum 296 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
(1954); Coston v. Coston, 196 La.
Hermes v. Hermes 287 So. 2d 789 La. 1973
754 , , and the cases therein cited.'" , (1954), we stated that circumstantial proof of adultery "must be so convincing as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt."
Udin v. Levin 273 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
the Supreme Court provided us with a concise statement as to the heavy burden of proof imposed upon the husband in the instant case: “ .
Dubois v. Falgout 268 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
In support of this contention he notes that the “ , *71 (1954)”, wherein the court said the following at page 180: “.
Johnson v. Johnson 268 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
LaTour v. Fuselier, supra; Daigle v. Daigle, La.App., ; , .
Bertrand v. Bertrand 260 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
LaTour v. Fuselier 228 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(1954); Coston v. Coston, 196 La.
Daigle v. Daigle 222 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Coston v. Coston, 196 La.
Lovell v. Lovell 205 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
As to the first of these issues, the rule, , (1954), is that "While it is well settled that the unfaithfulness of a spouse may be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence forasmuch as, in the nature of things, it can seldom be proven by direct or positive evidence, * * * the facts and surrounding circumstances must be such as to lea
Thomas v. Thomas 200 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
hly reviewed the pleadings and analyzed the testimony adduced at both the trial on the merits and the antecedent rule for the custody of the child, and no intricate legal question being involved, a proper determination of the case merely requires a correct appreciation of the conclusiveness of the evidence.” [ ] , (1954): “Applying this principle to the facts of the case at bar, we have no hesitancy in *733 deducing that the evidence submitted by-plaintiff falls short of establishing the adulter
Karl v. Karl 191 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Hayes v. Hayes, 225 La, 374, (1954); Coston v. Coston, 196 La.
Robicheaux v. Robicheaux 165 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
19 , ; , ; Guidry v. Allemand, 216 La.
Antony v. Antony 160 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Pilgrim v. Pilgrim, 235 La.
Morris v. Morris 152 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Pilgrim v. Pilgrim, 235 La.
Hennigan v. Hennigan 151 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
(1954) where the court observed that although the unfaithfulness of a spouse may be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence, the facts and surrounding circumstances must be such as to lead fairly and necessarily to the conclusion that adultery had been committed as alleged.
Bosch v. Girradot 143 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
Baasen v. Baasen 133 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Fister v. Fister 131 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
40 ; , ), the rule as stated by the court in Hayes v. Hayes, supra, is that "the circumstantial proof in these cases must be so convincing *105 as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt".
Pilgrim v. Pilgrim 102 So. 2d 864 La. 1958
Kendrick v. Kendrick 96 So. 2d 12 La. 1957
Kendrick v. Kendrick 96 So. 2d 12 La. 1957
Harris v. Harris 81 So. 2d 705 La. 1955
278 , , , in each of which, as here, there existed circumstances from which.
Olivier v. Abunza 76 So. 2d 528 La. 1954
We cannot help but find, , , that the plaintiff’s evidence does not establish the adultery of the wife.