DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rabun v. Rabun, 95 So. 2d 635.

30 citing documents.

  • Loyacano v. Loyacano 358 So. 2d 304 La. 1978
    (1957), the wife who had assets of $11,000, consisting of $3,700 in cash, equity in a mortgaged home, and an interest bearing promissory note was held to have sufficient means when considered in connection with a monthly salary of $125.
  • Musso v. Musso 343 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Sarpy v. Sarpy 323 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    (1957); Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
  • Nicolle v. Nicolle 308 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    897 , ; , ; Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
  • Bryant v. Bryant 310 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1957); Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
  • Webster v. Webster 308 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1957), the wife was employed at approximately $125 per month and received the following from the community property settlement: cash on deposit, $3,705.47; a house valued at $13,000 but subject to a mortgage indebtedness of $8,123.23 which she assumed; household furniture and fixtures; a 1951 Studebake
  • Frederic v. Frederic 302 So. 2d 903 La. 1974
    (1957); Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
  • Kees v. Kees 292 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    App. 1st Cir. 1963); , ; Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • Ash v. Wittenberg 278 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    70 , (1954); , (1957); Montz v. Montz, 253 La.
  • Hope v. Hope 271 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Fellows v. Fellows 267 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    897 , (1969); , (1957); Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
  • Caldwell v. Gilbert 253 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    * * * Wright v. Wright, [supra] , , and Davis v. Davis, 238 La.
  • Worley v. Worley 247 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    897 , (1969); , (1957); Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
  • Harwell v. Harwell 245 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1957); Montz v. Montz, 253 La.
  • Doughty v. Doughty 244 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    897 , (1969), , 95 So.2d *88 635 (1957); Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • Malone v. Malone 243 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    Vicknair v. Vicknair, 237 La.
  • Powell v. Mattyle 231 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Garrett v. Garrett 229 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    70 , ; , .” In the Smith v. Smith case, supra, the wife possessed property worth $20,000.00.
  • Leavines v. Leavines 224 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Vicknair v. Vicknair, 237 La.
  • Brenan v. Montz 221 So. 2d 40 La. 1969
  • Morace v. Morace 220 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    1st Cir.1963); , ; Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • Burris v. Burris 197 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    869 , (1944); , (1957); (La.App.
  • Vedrenne v. Vedrenne 163 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    the court denied the wife alimony because she was earning $125.00 per month and, exclusive of household furnishings and an automobile, had net assets worth $11,-000.00.
  • Anderson v. Anderson 158 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • Fruehan v. Fruehan 153 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    320 , ]; and Rabun v. Rabun [ , ].” In urging our reversal of the judgment rendered below, learned counsel for ap *78 pellant relies strongly upon the ruling in Loe v. Loe, La.App., ; Roberts v. Roberts, La.App., and Shapiro v. Shapiro, La.App., , which hold, in essence, a wife is not required
  • Hicks v. Hicks 147 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • Laiche v. Laiche 138 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    866 , , , 637, and Davis v. Davis, 238 La.
  • Wilson v. Wilson 129 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    *65 1004, , Wilmot v. Wilmot, supra, and Williams v. Barnette, supra.
  • Rader v. Pegram 126 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • St. Martin v. Lewis 109 So. 2d 81 La. 1959
    From such judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal, he urging (to quote from the brief of his counsel) “only that the alimony of $625 per month be reduced to $300 per month.” , , “The question of what is to be considered in awarding alimony under Revised Civil Code Article 160 (after a divorce has been granted) is no longer open to serious debate.