Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Messersmith v. Messersmith, 86 So. 2d 169.

79 citing documents.

McElwee v. McElwee 255 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
2d cir. 1964); , (1956); White v. White, 159 La.
Laffitte v. Laffitte 253 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
Succession of Russo 246 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
[9] , (1956); Succession of Geagan, 212 La.
Succession of Hotard 248 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Laffitte v. Laffitte 232 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
(1956) stated: "* * * it is stamped as property because it includes contract rights and obligations to receive money or other benefits to become due in the future, even though contingent upon the happening of an event at an uncertain time.
Gouaux v. Gouaux 211 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
(1956); Succession of Geagan, 212 La.
Bynacker v. McMichael 205 So. 2d 433 La. 1967
503 ; Beatty v. Vining, La.App., ; , ; 27 La.L.Rev.
Succession of Videau 197 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
(1956); Succession of Geagan, 212 La.
Vives v. Fortier 200 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
136 and 155; , ; Tanner v. Tanner, 229 La.
Pennison v. Pennison 187 So. 2d 747 La. 1966
Dunham v. Dunham 174 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
*906 , , also relied upon by plaintiff is likewise inapplicable to the instant case.
Sachse v. Sachse 150 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Geo. L. Ducros Tile Co. v. Ruth 137 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Succession of Byrnes, 206 La.
Viser v. Viser 138 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
as follows: “The law governing alimony pen-dente lite is as follows: “‘ “Article 148 of the (Revised) Civil Code declares that, in a suit for separation from bed and board, or for divorce, if the wife, whether she be plaintiff or defendant, has not a sufficient income for her maintenance during the pe
Romero v. Leger 133 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
399 , ; , ; Coney v. Coney, 230 La.
Ohanna v. Ohanna 129 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
808 , ; , ; Tanner v. Tanner, 229 La.
Franks v. City of Alexandria 128 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Thomas v. Leonard Truck Lines, La.App.
Azar v. Azar 120 So. 2d 485 La. 1960
State v. Garner 115 So. 2d 855 La. 1959
168 , ; , ; Riggin v. Watson-Aven Ice Cream Co., 192 La.
James v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 113 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
1068 , ; , .” These principles were later recognized and reiterated in Patterson v. City of De Ridder, 235 La.
Boucvalt v. Boucvalt 104 So. 2d 157 La. 1958
in support of his contention.
Rex-Metallic Casket Co. v. Gregory 104 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
1068 , ; Messersmith v. Messersmith, [ ] .” The objections to the allowance of plaintiff’s amended and supplemental petition were without merit and should have been overruled.
Patterson v. City of De Ridder 103 So. 2d 68 La. 1958
89 , ; , ; Breaux v. Laird, 230 La.
Ruffino v. Hunt 99 So. 2d 34 La. 1958
399 , , , the community was dissolved as of the date of rendition of the divorce judgment, such dissolution not having a retroactive effect to the date of the filing of the suit.
Conley v. Johnson 98 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
1068 , ; Messersmith v. Messersmith [ ], .” It is apparent from a careful reading of plaintiff’s petition that it was not the intention of petitioner to declare upon a written contract, but rather that the instrument referred to was included by reference and pertinent to an oral agreement, and this interpretation is confirmed in the testimony
Thigpen v. Thigpen 91 So. 2d 12 La. 1956
Coney v. Coney 89 So. 2d 326 La. 1956
399 , ; , ; Abraham v. Abraham, La., and Abunza v. Olivier, La., .
Abunza v. Olivier 88 So. 2d 815 La. 1956
Breaux v. Laird 88 So. 2d 33 La. 1956
1068 , ; Messersmith v. Messersmith, La., .