Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bush v. Bush, 95 So. 2d 298.

18 citing documents.

Craig v. Craig 365 So. 2d 1298 La. 1979
*1300 (1957); Smith v. Smith, 43 La.Ann.
Johnson v. Welsh 334 So. 2d 395 La. 1976
Fuori v. Fuori 334 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1957); Richards v. Garth, supra.
Berry v. Berry 310 So. 2d 626 La. 1975
Watts v. Watts 305 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Bush vs. Bush, , (1957).
Berry v. Berry 300 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1957); Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La.
Seals v. Jacobs 292 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Bush v. Bush (S.Ct.1957) , ; Moseley v. Moseley (La.App.
Tannehill v. Tannehill 261 So. 2d 619 La. 1972
909 ), the Court of Appeal held that Theodore Tan *938 nehill, Jr., seeking to annul the LaSalle Parish judgment, had the “burden to show that Mr. Southerland was not at fault and that the then Mrs. Southerland was not justified in establishing a separate domicile for herself in LaSalle Parish.” ( , ).
Carrier v. Carrier 258 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Authement v. Authement 254 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The plaintiff wife relies on jurisprudence construing these articles to mean that a wife can leave her husband and establish a separate domicile where she is compelled to do so by reason of his cruelty, , (1957).
Tannehill v. Tannehill 247 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The answer to this argument is the exception to Article 39 established in our jurisprudence that a wife is authorized to acquire a separate domicile for herself where she is abandoned or is compelled by reason of ill treatment to leave her husband, , (1957); (La.App.
Self v. Self 228 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Hickman v. Hickman 218 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Moseley v. Moseley 200 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Lerch v. Lerch 177 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Powell v. Powell 152 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
204 (1st Cir.1930); , (1957); Fontenot et al. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company et al., La.App., (1st Cir.1959).
Succession of Kieran 144 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
The latest we find is that in Bush v. Bush (1957), , , in which Justice Hamiter said, on page 299: “* * * Next, plaintiff assigns error to the court’s sustaining the exception to the jurisdiction ratione personae, he directing particular attention to provisions of the Revised Civil Code that ‘The wife is bound to live with her husband and to follow him wh
Bernard v. Broussard 128 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
737 , , the court held as follows with reference to the general rule that a wife must follow her husband wherever he chooses to reside: “With further reference to such general rule and the exception thereto the following observations of this court are pertinent: ‘The marital obligation imposed by Article 120 of the Civ