DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 283 So. 2d 226.

151 citing documents.

  • Susana F. Moody v. Ross Moody La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    Similarly, (emphasis in original), the supreme court explained that “the term ‘maintenance’, while meaning primarily food, clothing and shelter, does include such items as reasonable and necessary transportation or automobile expenses, medical and drug expenses, utilities, household e
  • Derek H. Tucker v. Renate Tucker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    Similarly, (emphasis in original), the supreme court explained that “the term ‘maintenance’, while meaning primarily food, clothing and shelter, does include such items as reasonable and necessary transportation or automobile expenses, medical and drug expenses, utilities, household expenses, and the income ta
  • Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld 90 So. 3d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    -38 (La.1976); -29 (La.1973).
  • Iles v. Ogden 37 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Prestenback v. Prestenback 9 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    4 McCarty v. McCarty, 2000-2212, p. 5 (La.App.
  • Dwight O. Franco v. Patricia Franco La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Murrell v. Murrell 956 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Widman v. Widman, 93-613 (La.App.
  • Bland v. Bland 705 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Ellefson v. Ellefson 666 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Malone v. Malone 637 So. 2d 1039 La. 1994
    2d Cir.), writ denied, ().
  • Crumling v. Crumling 628 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    (consent); (consent) (overruling prior jurisprudence); (La.App.
  • Crumling v. Crumling 628 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    (consent); (consent) (overruling prior jurisprudence); (La.App.
  • Ellefson v. Ellefson 616 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    that a consent judgment was modifiable upon a sufficient showing of a change of circumstances.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 582 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    art. 202 A. Saia Motor Freight Lines
  • Vest v. Vest 579 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    Clary v. Clary, supra at 858 , (La.
  • Overruled Martin v. Martin 552 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Moore, supra, -229 (La.1973).
  • Jeansonne v. Jeansonne 550 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Clary v. Clary 550 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Rhinehart, supra ; Creech, supra ; (La.App.
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell 541 So. 2d 831 La. 1989
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell 539 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Callihan v. Hartman 534 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Impastato v. Impastato 527 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    (2nd Cir.1977) writ refused Boswell v. *355 Boswell, (2nd Cir.1987).
  • Russell v. Russell 520 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Cromwell v. Cromwell, 419 So.
  • McDonald v. McDonald 516 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Boswell v. Boswell 501 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Eckhardt v. Eckhardt 499 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Harper v. Harper 496 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Barfield v. Barfield 483 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Gaidry v. Gaidry 481 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Patterson v. Egan 480 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Rhinehart v. Rhinehart 477 So. 2d 692 La. 1985
    LEMMON, Justice: concurs in the result, requiring a change in circumstances, to apply as a standard for modification and not as an absolute rule.
  • Chandler v. Chandler 478 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Aldredge v. Aldredge 477 So. 2d 73 La. 1985
    Although this court has recognized that proof of a change in circumstances is generally necessary for modification of these awards, see, we have never held that this *75 requirement is imperative under the Civil Code or public policy.
  • Rhinehart v. Rhinehart 475 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    which limits a court's consideration of obligee spouse's need when the original need was consented to by the obligor spouse.
  • Harlow v. Harlow 471 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Bergeron v. Munsch 471 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    : Article 160 of the Civil Code authorizes the court, in its discretion, to award alimony after divorce to a wife only when the wife has not been at fault and when she has not sufficient means for her support.
  • Duhe v. Duhe 466 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    The Moore case, however, in which the court held that the husband's consent to payment of alimony did not preclude the divorce judgment from constituting an award "previously fixed and determined," and thus a showing of change of circumstances was necessary for a reduction.
  • Aldredge v. Aldredge 465 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    our Supreme Court held that a consent decree of alimony is a judgment “ ‘previously fixed and determined’ by the court”.
  • deMontluzin v. Eskrigge 464 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a consent judgment serves as a judicial admission of a spouse’s right to receive alimony, meaning that the receiving spouse is free from fault.
  • DeMontluzin v. DeMontluzin 464 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a consent judgment serves as a judicial admission of a spouse's right to receive alimony, meaning that the receiving spouse is free from fault.
  • Distinguished Hogan v. Hogan 465 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Contrary to Mr. Hogan's argument, this case is significantly distinguishable from those cited by Mr. Hogan in support of his argument: (La.
  • Lopez v. Breaux 462 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    646 , (1950), as well as reasonable and necessary transportation expenses, utility expenses (such as gas and electricity), medical and drug expenses, household expenses, and income tax liability generated by the alimony payments, "
  • Romero v. Romero 463 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Hicks v. Hicks 450 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Gray v. Gray 451 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Loyacano, supra ; Meyers, supra .
  • Creech v. Creech 449 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Braning v. Braning 449 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Arabie v. Arabie 447 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Carlone v. Carlone 444 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Meunier v. Meunier 437 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983