DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Williams, 87 So. 2d 707.

22 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services, in the Interest of A.L. v. Thomas Robert Lowrie 167 So. 3d 573 La. 2015
    933 , (1972); , (1956); Katherine Shaw Spaht and William Marshall |sShaw, Jr., The Strongest Presumption Challenged: Speculations on Warren v. Richard and Succession of Mitchell, 37 La.L.Rev.
  • Pociask v. Moseley 122 So. 3d 533 La. 2013
    n Gallo , we explained that the policy embodied in the restrictive provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code dealing with the action to disavow is “to protect innocent children, born during marriage, against scandalous attacks upon their paternity by the husband of the mother, who may be seeking to avoid paternal obligations to the child.” Gallo , p. 7, 861 So.2d at 173 (-8 , (1956)).
  • Gallo v. Gallo 861 So. 2d 168 La. 2003
  • Verneuille v. Verneuille 438 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    933 , , Feazel, supra, Succession of Saloy, 10 So.
  • IMC Exploration Co. v. Henderson 419 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    (1956); Feazel v. Feazel, 222 La.
  • Tenneco Oil Company v. Houston 372 So. 2d 1194 La. 1979
    933 , (1972); , (1956); Feazel v. Feazel, 222 La.
  • Succession of Mitchell 323 So. 2d 451 La. 1975
    933, (1972); , (1956); Feazel v. Feazel, 222 La.
  • Morrison v. Griffin 323 So. 2d 451 La. 1975
    933 , (1972); , (1956); Feazel v. Feazel, 222 La.
  • Dugas v. Henson 307 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    (1956); Feazel v. Feazel, 222 La.
  • McConkey v. Pinto 305 So. 2d 469 La. 1974
  • Taylor v. Taylor 295 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Smith v. Smith 300 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    * * * * * * "As was stated in Williams vs. Williams, [ , ]: "It has always been the policy of Louisiana law to protect innocent children, born during marriage, against scandalous attacks upon their paternity by the husband of the mother, who may be seeking to avoid his obligations, or by third persons unscrupulously claiming the estate of the husband af
  • Brugman v. Prejean 288 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Tannehill v. Tannehill 261 So. 2d 619 La. 1972
  • Tannehill v. Tannehill 226 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    Lambert v. Lambert, La.App.3d Cir., .
  • Lewis v. Powell 178 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
  • Lambert v. Lambert 164 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    113 , , and "This presumption is conclusive, except in certain limited cases", , .
  • Melancon v. Sonnier 157 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    and Trahan v. Trahan, La.App.
  • Gillies v. Gillies 144 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Where both spouses resided in the *895 same City, there is no such remoteness as would support an action en desaveu, , ; Feazell v. Feazell, 222 La.
  • Trahan v. Trahan 142 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    the court did not discuss LSA-C.C.
  • Kendrick v. Kendrick 96 So. 2d 12 La. 1957
  • Kendrick v. Kendrick 96 So. 2d 12 La. 1957