Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Laiche v. Laiche, 111 So. 2d 120.

53 citing documents.

State ex rel. K.T. 841 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Singletary v. James 838 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
[5] Laiche v, Laiche, , (1959); McManus, .
Savage v. Savage 821 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Moore 722 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
(1959); McManus, 528 So.2d at 1107 .
Johnson v. Johnson 683 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
9:315.9; , (1959); (La.App.
Hutto v. Kneipp 627 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Fusilier v. Johnson 626 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
be sued for and granted.” “This simply means that, if the person who is required to provide alimony becomes unable to do so, by reason of fortuitous events or other circumstances beyond his control, such as the loss of his position or illness, relief will be granted as it would be highly unjust to exact from the obligor a strict compliance with his duty under those conditions.”
State v. Nelson 587 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
(1959), a case in which a father sought a reduction of his child support obligations on the basis of increased obligations resulting from his remarriage.
Salazar v. Salazar 582 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Kirby v. Kirby 579 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
(1959); Kaye v. Kaye, supra .
Toups v. Toups 573 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Vidrine v. Vidrine 567 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Crane v. Crane 541 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
(1959), we wrote: "Once the appellant presented evidence of a change in circumstances, he had established a prima facie case for entitlement to a reduction in his support obligations.
Kaye v. Kaye 529 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Bushnell v. Bushnell 527 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Liles v. Liles 509 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(1959) as support for her proposition that the trial judge should not have considered the $743.00 per month in fixed obligations defendant pays every month.
DeBlieux v. DeBlieux 467 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Laiche [v. Laiche] [ , ] Supra.
Boudreaux v. Boudreaux 460 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Laiche [v. Laiche, , (1959)], supra.
Feinhals v. Feinhals 460 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Ewing v. Ewing 442 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Abercrombie v. Abercrombie 434 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Durbin v. Durbin 424 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(1959); Ledet v. *1133 Ledet, (La.App.
Martin v. Brasseaux 422 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Article 227; Dugas v. Dugas, supra; , (1959).
Goodrich v. Goodrich 421 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Dugas v. Dugas, supra; , LSA-C.C.
Dupuy v. Dupuy 421 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Bass v. Bass 417 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Alexander v. Alexander 417 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Moore v. Moore, supra; (La.App.
Ledet v. Ledet 416 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Guinn v. Guinn 405 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Shelton v. Shelton 395 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Galbraith v. Galbraith 382 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Moore v. Moore 380 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Dugas v. Dugas 374 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Collins v. Collins 359 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
4th Cir. 1973); , (1959).
Tablada v. Tablada 356 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Baer v. Simon 334 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Phillips v. Phillips 319 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Marcus v. Burnett 282 So. 2d 122 La. 1973
[3] , (1959) as setting forth an invariable rule that the expenses of a second marriage can never be considered when determining liability for support of children of a prior marriage.
Atkinson v. Atkinson 275 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
[ , (1959)] Balancing their needs against those of the husband, and taking into consideration his 1971 income of $22,767, we find the judgment should be and it is hereby amended to increase the child support from $150 to $200 a month for each child, payable as before, i. e., on the fifth and twentieth of e
Jackson v. Jackson 275 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
3d Cir. 1965); , (1959).
Marcus v. Burnett 264 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1950), the court held that a father who remarries cannot urge the expenses of the second marriage as grounds to reduce his obligations to support the children of his first marriage.
Lopez v. Lopez 264 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
287 , (1969); , (1959); (La.App.
Bentley v. Bentley 256 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
In Laiche v. Laiche, 1959, , , the Supreme Court of this state reiterated the rule that the primary obligation of a husband is to support, maintain and educate his children of a first marriage and although he has a right to remarry, he cannot use the costs and indebtedness incurred by reason of his second marriage as a basis for r
Laiche v. Laiche 231 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Morace v. Morace 220 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
3rd Cir.1965); , (1959).
Sanders v. Williams 197 So. 2d 635 La. 1967
Newton v. Newton 196 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
In Laiche v. Laiche (1959) , , is found the case where a plaintiff sought to have an alimony judgment for the support of his children reduced on the ground that he had married again and now had a second wife and two step-children to support.
Graves v. Graves 197 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
wherein the Supreme Court stated: “Indeed, any voluntary act by a parent which renders it difficult or impossible to perform the primary obligation of support and maintenance of his children cannot be countenanced as a ground for release, either wholly or partially, from the obligation.” With respect
Meyers v. Bohrer 176 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Lytell v. Lytell 144 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962