DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Abraham v. Abraham, 87 So. 2d 735.

39 citing documents.

  • Melanie Blanchard Tauzin v. Todd Charles Tauzin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    Katherine S. Spaht and W. Lee Hargrave, in Matrimonial Regimes, § 7.17, 16 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise (1989), So.2d 735 (La.
  • Kevin J. St. Marie v. Lisa M. Roy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    We shall continue to follow the standard pronounced by this court in Abraham [v. Abraham, So.2d 735 (La.1956)].” Id.
  • St. Marie v. Roy 29 So. 3d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    We shall continue to follow the standard pronounced by this court in Abraham [v. Abraham, , (1956) ].” Id.
  • Salley v. Salley 661 So. 2d 437 La. 1995
    this court examined Article 2408, the predecessor to Article 2368.
  • Salley v. Salley 647 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Krielow v. Krielow 635 So. 2d 180 La. 1994
  • Loyacono v. Loyacono 618 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    The court held that plaintiff was entitled to one-half of the enhanced value of the property
  • Hartfield v. Hartfield 602 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    See Beals v. Fontenot, 111 F.2d 956 (5th Cir.1940); Abraham v. Abraham, [ ] 87 So.
  • Cason v. Cason 564 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    103 , (1947); , (1956); Giamanco v. Giamanco, [ ] supra.'" We find that the trial judge erred in finding that there was no comingling of community and separate funds such that the separate funds are no longer susceptible of identification.
  • Guarisco v. Guarisco 526 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Honorine contends that Luke’s labor and industry during their marriage (equivalent to common labor or industry, Abraham v. Abraham, [ ], ) resulted in the dramatic increase in value of the Company.
  • Guarisco v. Guarisco 526 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Honorine contends that Luke's labor and industry during their marriage (equivalent to common labor or industry, Abraham v. Abraham, [ ], (La.
  • Barry v. Barry 501 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    See Beals v. Fontenot, 111 F.2d 956 (5th Cir.1940); Abraham v. Abraham, [ ] 87 So.
  • Succession of McVay v. McVay 476 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    103 , (1947); , (1956); Giamanco v. Giamanco, [ ] supra."
  • McKey v. McKey 449 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    (1956), that once the party claiming reimbursement under La.C.C.
  • Downs v. Downs 410 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Deliberto v. Deliberto 400 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    [6] The Supreme Court, , (1956), settled the problems of what amount of community labor, expenses or industry must be expended on separate property before reimbursement must be paid and who must bear the burden of proof in reimbursement cases.
  • Mohr v. Mohr 374 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    (1956), the court noted that it was implicit in Beals that, had it been shown that the husband's efforts contributed to the increase in value of his stock, then one-half of the value would have been due to the wife.
  • Lane v. Lane 375 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Guilott v. Guilott 361 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Daigre v. Daigre, 228 La.
  • Fontenot v. Fontenot 339 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    2408; , Succession of Singer, 208 La.
  • Ogden v. Ogden 331 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Palama v. Palama 323 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Succession of Dukes v. Williams 285 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    He theorizes a commingling of separate and com *888 munity resulting in the conversion (similar to that occurring in bank or savings accounts, as in Abraham v. Abraham, 1956, , ).
  • Corkern v. Corkern 270 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    [5] , (1956), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the use of the phrase "common labor or industry" in Article 2408 means "community labor or industry," as the word "common" used in this article is synonymous with "community."
  • Dubuisson v. Moseley 232 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Paxton v. Bramlette 228 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    437 , (1952) , (1956) make it clear that the 1944 amendment to LSA-CC Article 2386 does not change the law as to earnings produced by the industry and labor of the wife.
  • Gregory v. Gregory 223 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
  • Ardoin v. LeBleu 208 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    1071 , (1957); , (1956); (La.
  • Succession of Sonnier 208 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    1071 , (1957); , (1956); (La.
  • Succession of Barr 203 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    505 , (1959); , (1956); and Daigre v. Daigre, 228 La.
  • Succession of Edmondson 192 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    uted by Mr. Edmondson, entitled him to one-half of the increase in the value of this property, which amounts to $11,-450, the burden shifted to Mrs. Brown to affirmatively establish that this increase was due to the ordinary course of things, rise in values, or chances of trade, which she had not shown on the trial of the case, as announced by our Supreme Court in the case of Abraham v. Abraham [ ], [735], While the evidence did show that the mortgage was paid with community funds, and Mr. Ed-mo
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 177 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    1071 , ; Abraham *139 v. Abraham, , ; Giamanco v. Giamanco, La.App.
  • Distinguished Succession of Hollier 158 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    1071 , ; , ; Giamanco v. Giamanco, La.App.
  • Giamanco v. Giamanco 131 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    the Court considered the issue of commingling as to several accounts and followed the principal which was laid down in Slater v. Culpepper to the effect that there must be a considerable and substantial commingling of separate funds with community funds in order to find that a larger amount of separat
  • Winston v. Winston 130 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    839 , ; and Abraham v. Abraham ( ) .” , and the Court concluded that the enhanced value of the property and not the cost of improvements should determine the recompense to which the community is entitled.
  • Chrisentery v. Chrisentery 124 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    445 , ; , ; Succession of Rusciana, 232 La.
  • Abraham v. Abraham 98 So. 2d 197 La. 1957
  • Coney v. Coney 89 So. 2d 326 La. 1956
    495 , ; Abraham v. Abraham, La., and Abunza v. Olivier, La., .
  • Abunza v. Olivier 88 So. 2d 815 La. 1956
    839 , and Abraham v. Abraham, La., .