Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tanner v. Tanner, 86 So. 2d 80.

44 citing documents.

Amoco Production Company v. Texas, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
So.2d 80; Abunza v. Olivier, 230 La.
Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 876 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
[(1955)]; Abunza v. Olivier, 230 La.
First Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Dooley 535 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Ruling that the attorney fee awards outranked the bank’s judgment, the trial court reasoned: “Thus, whether the award of attorney’s fees is a ‘creature of jurisprudence’, as in Tanner [v. Tanner, , (1956) ]; or whether it is a creature of contract, as in Foundation Finance Company v. Robbins, [ 179 La.
Patterson v. Patterson 417 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Messersmith held that alimony pendente lite should be paid out of community funds, , (1956), which held that the community of acquets and gains is dissolved not as of the date of filing of a suit for separation or divorce, but as of the date of judgment of separation from bed and board or divorce.
Palmatier v. Palmatier 394 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
the court had allowed the wife attorney's fees in a divorce proceeding by overruling prior jurisprudence to the contrary and holding that under LSA-C.C.
Vines v. Vines 379 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1956); Malone v. Malone, 260 La.
Donica v. Donica 347 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1956); Malone v. Malone, 260 La.
Guillory v. Guillory 339 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
[2] Succession of Butler, La., ; , .
Gauthreaux v. Gauthreaux 315 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
See also: , (1955), legislatively overruled in part under amendment of Civil Code Article 155 by Act 178 of 1962, which also recognized this jurisprudential exception.
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson 312 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
83 (1965); Malone v. Malone, 260 La.
Black v. Black 288 So. 2d 611 La. 1974
Barranger, Barranger & Jones v. Farmer 289 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
(1955); (1st La.App.1970), affirmed 260 La.
McAdams v. McAdams 267 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Malone v. Malone 257 So. 2d 397 La. 1972
Aime v. Hebert 254 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Strother v. Strother 248 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1956) our Supreme Court considered the problem and held: “In view of this conclusion and of our holding above that appellant as head and master of the community is liable for the attorney’s fees of appellee, and since the record shows that the community existing between these litigants had some assets f
Kirchberg v. Holloman 248 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
587 , ; , ; Gosserand v. Monteleone, 164 La.
Moseley v. Moseley 216 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
(1955) [on rehearing]; Franks v. Franks, 236 La.
Tooley v. Pennison 208 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
206 , (23); , , Glorioso v. Glorioso, 223 La.
Bynacker v. McMichael 205 So. 2d 433 La. 1967
Herman v. Jambois 205 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
587 , ; Thigpen v. Thigpen, supra; , ; Uchello v. Uchello, 220 La.
Vives v. Fortier 200 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Bynacker v. McMichael 194 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
it has become the settled jurisprudence of this state that the marital community is dissolved as of the date of the judgment of separation or divorce, and not as of the date of filing suit therefor.
Gallagher v. Gallagher 190 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
See, also: , (1956) (on rehearing); Gosserand v. Monteleone, 159 La.
Pennison v. Pennison 187 So. 2d 747 La. 1966
Art. 159; , ; Messersmith v. Messersmith, 229 La.
Moore v. Moore 187 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
(1955) attorney's fees incurred by a wife in a divorce proceeding are chargeable to the community even when she is unsuccessful in the suit.
LaFleur v. Guillory 181 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Sciambra v. Sciambra 153 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
1061 , ; , ; Vicknair v. Terracina, 168 La.
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Lewis 150 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
he filing of the suit for separation from bed and board, by an act before a notary and two witnesses, which act shall be recorded in the conveyance office of the parish where said parties are domiciled, but which act shall be without prejudice to rights validly acquired in the interim between rendition of the judgment and recordation of the act of reconciliation.” , 86 So.
Shockley v. Shockley 141 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
357 , (1953); , (1955); Franks v. Franks, 236 La.
Meyer v. Howard 136 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
122 , ; , ; Glorioso v. Glorioso, 223 La.
Gilbert v. Hutchinson 135 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Giamanco v. Giamanco, La.
Romero v. Leger 133 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Messersmith v. Messersmith, 229 La.
Chapman v. Chapman 130 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Franks v. Franks, 236 La.
Ohanna v. Ohanna 129 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
Wampler v. Wampler 118 So. 2d 423 La. 1960
However, counsel for plaintiff are reurging here their position below that defendant acquired the interest in the mineral lease during the existence of the marital community, , , because the assignment is dated July 8, 1952, prior to the time of the dissolution of the community by the decree of divorce and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to be recognized as co-owner of the lease.
O'Dowd v. McNeill 110 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
310 ; See Tanner v. Tanner, 1956, , .
Franks v. Franks 107 So. 2d 415 La. 1958
Tanner v. Tanner, on rehearing, , .
Ruffino v. Hunt 99 So. 2d 34 La. 1958
and Messersmith v. Messersmith, 229 La.
Abraham v. Abraham 98 So. 2d 197 La. 1957
Abunza v. Olivier, 230 La.
McNeill v. Elchinger 93 So. 2d 669 La. 1957
Brantley v. Tugwell, supra; Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co., supra, , .
Thigpen v. Thigpen 91 So. 2d 12 La. 1956
357 , , , defendant did not appeal from the judgment in the separation suit and it has long since become final.
Coney v. Coney 89 So. 2d 326 La. 1956
Messersmith v. Messersmith, 229 La.
Abunza v. Olivier 88 So. 2d 815 La. 1956
and Messersmith v. Messersmith, 229 La.