Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Green, 210 So. 2d 328.

13 citing documents.

Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
So.2d 328 (La.1968), overruled on other grounds, Creech v. Capitol Mack, Inc.
Phillips v. G & H Seed Co. 86 So. 3d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
overruled on other grounds, Creech v. Capitol Mack, Inc.
Willis v. LeTulle 597 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
697 , (1969); , (1968); (La.App.
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging Corp. 419 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
overruled on other grounds, Creech v. Capitol Mack, Inc.
Emmons v. Emmons 348 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Charbonnet v. Martin 285 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
495 , ; U. S. Fidelity & , , etc. He argues further that since she has a vested interest, that interest should be subject to seizure by her separate creditors.
Creech v. Capitol MacK, Inc. 287 So. 2d 497 La. 1973
Creech v. Capitol Mack, Inc. 268 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
The District Judge, in finding for the intervenors, concluded that, in view of our Supreme Court’s ruling in United States Fidelity & , (1968), the plaintiff should be permanently enjoined from the contemplated seizure and sale.
White v. Klein 266 So. 2d 223 La. 1972
511 , (1954) is equivocal in its alternative holding and may be distinguished or it should be limited in application in light of United States Fidelity & , (1968).
White v. Klein 263 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1968), that under Article 2403 of the Civil Code debts of both the husband and wife, contracted prior to their marriage, can only be acquitted out of their separate estates, and that assets of the community are not liable for same.
X-L Finance Co. v. Courns 262 So. 2d 38 La. 1972
TATE and DIXON, JJ., dissent, believing that United States Fidelity & , (1968) should be reconsidered.
X-L Finance Co. v. Courns 260 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Appellant has raised two issues that merit our consideration: (1) do the factual differences between the present case and United States Fidelity & , (1968), justify a finding by this Court that the holding of the Green case is inapplicable to the facts herein, and (2) does the fact that the seizure and garnishment of Mrs. Courns’ wages occurred prior to the Supreme Court opinion in Green preclude this Court from following the Green case as decision
Haney v. Allstate Insurance 246 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Pursuant to an intervention filed by Anderson Jones on August 6, 1969, the district court, on the authority of United States Fidelity & , (1968), ruled that his wages were not subject to garnishment under the judgment herein and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the plaintiffs herein from going ahead with this garnishment proceeding.