DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Malone v. Malone, 282 So. 2d 119.

40 citing documents.

  • Rashaad Pittman v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
    2d 447 ( 1972), and affirmed, ( La.
  • Eppie Anton Rodriguez v. Michael Janine Rodriguez, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • Jupiter v. Jupiter 154 So. 3d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Boulton 156 So. 3d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    In 1973, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the phrase “judgment awarding” then and now contained in Article 3943 1 *46 (La.1973).
  • Edward Lee Rubar v. Stephanie (Wilson) Rubar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Ellis v. Ellis 896 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    was an action by an ex-husband against an ex-wife for termination of alimony.
  • State v. Williams 834 So. 2d 1067 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Ventura v. Rubio 785 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Rosenbloom v. Bauchat, 94-2346, p. 4 (La.
  • Rosenbloom v. Bauchat 654 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Wright v. Jefferson Roofing, Inc. 630 So. 2d 773 La. 1994
  • Mathews v. Mathews 489 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Although the narrow question in Frederic was termination of an alimony award, and our issue is an increase in the award, this distinction is of no consequence
  • Cassidy v. Cassidy 477 So. 2d 84 La. 1985
    3943 speaks in terms of a judgment that has awarded alimony, has held that appeals from judgments denying or terminating alimony are also governed by that article.
  • Derbes v. Derbes 462 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Beach v. Beach 459 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Bargas v. Land 457 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Whipple v. Whipple 451 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In support of its conclusion, (La.
  • Wasson v. Wasson 439 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    And although the article speaks only in terms of there being no suspensive appeals in cases involving a judgment awarding alimony, an earlier case, (La.
  • Rast v. Rast 432 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Appellant’s contention that the thirty day period for appeal does not apply to a
  • Morris v. Morris 426 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Oliver v. Oliver 417 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Kahn v. Spencer 401 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Slater v. Slater 394 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    the court held as follows: *681 “Confusion has arisen when the judgment being appealed was rendered pursuant to a rule or a petition for the modification or termination of alimony or custody.
  • Donaldson v. Donaldson 389 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Sizeler v. Sizeler 369 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Villaume v. Villaume 355 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    App. 1 Cir. 1972), affirmed at our Supreme Court, in affirming a judgment of the First Circuit Court of Appeal, stated: “Therefore, we hold that appeals from judgments awarding, denying, modifying or terminating alimony or custody are governed by the provisions of C.C.P.
  • Lacour v. Lacour 355 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    the Supreme Court interpreted the purpose of C.C.P.
  • Bell v. Bell 349 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • O'Brien v. O'Brien 347 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Zaunbrecher v. Zaunbrecher 338 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Malone v. Malone, La., (1973); (La.App.
  • Oubre v. Borne 338 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    2088; Malone v. Malone, La.1973, .
  • Matherne v. Matherne 331 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    1st Cir. 1972), affirmed
  • Something Irish Co. v. Rack 333 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons, La., ; Malone v. Malone, La., ; Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Cocreham, 251 La.
  • Cousin v. Cousin 327 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Entrekin v. Entrekin 325 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Donica v. Donica 324 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, (1973) was faced with determining the applicable delay within which to appeal a judgment which did not award alimony, whether said delay should be thirty days (C.C.P.
  • Carlisle v. Carlisle 313 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    3943 and 3942, and must be perfected within thirty days from the applicable date provided in LSA-C.C.P.
  • Langley v. Langley 316 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Articles 3943 and 3942 and must be perfected within 30 days from the applicable date provided in LSA-C.C.P.
  • Brasher v. Walker 309 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Fuori v. Fuori 316 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    See also Malone v. Malone, La., , and authorities therein cited, and Lodatto v. Lodatto, 238 La.
  • Swan v. Clover Farm Creamery, Inc. 311 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Southern Construction Co. v. Housing Authority of City of Opelousas, 250 La.