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.

  • Distinguished Patterson v. Patterson 436 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    We distinguished Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, La, (1973), which is relied on by defendant, on the grounds that Bernhardt held only that the mother has no right of action to sue for child support which becomes due after the child reaches the age of majority.
  • McLin v. McLin 434 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    In order to modify a judgment or consent decree awarding alimony, the party seeking to modify the award must show there has been a (La.App.
  • Jordan v. Jordan 432 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Green v. Green 432 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Nash v. Nash 431 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Milligan v. Milligan 431 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    App. 4th Cir.1967); (La.App.
  • Durbin v. Durbin 424 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Vorisek v. Vorisek 423 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • McKenna v. Steen 422 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Townsend v. Townsend 421 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Gabriel v. Gabriel 419 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
  • Hamiter v. Hamiter 419 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Fitch v. Fitch 417 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the party seeking permanent alimony was entitled to not simply food, clothing and shelter, but also to “transportation and automobile expenses, medical and drug expenses, utilities, household expenses, and income tax liability generated by alimony payments.” The trial c
  • Bass v. Bass 417 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Heck v. Heck 417 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Cromwell v. Cromwell 419 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Peraino v. Peraino 414 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Smith v. Smith 416 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    earning capability” of the spouse claiming alimony “in the light of all other circumstances.”
  • Shackleford v. Shackleford 411 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Buxton v. Buxton 411 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    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, ” As aforementioned, no new evidence was introduced at the hearing for divorce in this matter.
  • Guice v. Guice 411 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Robinson v. Robinson 412 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • McGovern v. Tatman 410 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    as relied upon by the husband in Halcomb (and which cases are also relied upon by the defendant in the present case), the court in Halcomb also said at 1016-1017: “The husband relies principally upon this Court’s
  • Johnston v. Johnston 408 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Jordan v. Jordan 406 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Geter v. Geter 404 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    Appellant also argues that the part of plaintiff's gasoline expense attributable to her use of the car to travel to and from college should not be considered, as a necessary expense to be considered by the trial court in setting the amount of alimony.
  • Silas v. Silas 399 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Guerra v. Guerra 401 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Sims v. Sims 396 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    held that the party receiving permanent alimony (although only the wife could receive alimony at the time that decision was rendered, the principles set forth therein hold good for either former spouse) was entitled to not simply food, clothing, and shelter, but also to “transportation or automobile expenses
  • Howell v. Howell 391 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Bradford v. Bradford 393 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Marshall v. Marshall 390 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    1488 , 59 L.Ed.2d 766 on remand
  • Thiel v. Thiel 388 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    [2] Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, La., .
  • Sonfield v. Deluca 385 So. 2d 232 La. 1980
  • Tracy v. Tracy 388 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Kean v. Kean 388 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1978), (1973), list the expenses for which alimony may be allowed: food, shelter, clothing, reasonable and necessary transportation or automobile expenses, medical and drug expenses, utilities, household expenses and the income tax liability caused by alimony.
  • Higdon v. Higdon 385 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, supra [ ]; Vicknair v. Johnson ( Vicknair ), 237 La.
  • Adams v. Adams 384 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Appellant Robert E. Adams assigns as error the trial judge’s ruling in requiring that he show a and also the misapplication of Article 160 of the Louisiana Civil Code by not requiring the wife to show that she is in necessitous circumstances and has not sufficient means for her maintenance.
  • Moss v. Moss 379 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    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
  • Lucien v. Lucien 378 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Sonfield v. Deluca 377 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    But an ex-husband is not obliged to maintain his ex-wife beyond the “reasonable and necessary” expenses of ordinary living, Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, La.1973, , and would not be obliged to pay alimony including an amount for rent more than reasonable and necessary: and we conclude that he is not obliged to maintain his ex-wife in living quarters clearly more costly than “reasonable and necessary” by paying her alimony while she uses her otherwise sufficient means to pr
  • Kellogg v. Kellogg 375 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Bernard v. McKendrick 374 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    See Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, La.1973, ; Mittelbronn v. Mittelbronn, La.App.
  • Bruner v. Bruner 373 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Short v. Fink 372 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    See Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, La., , and Meyers v. Meyers, La.App., .
  • Constantine v. Constantine 372 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Hyams v. Hyams 365 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Mittelbronn v. Mittelbronn 363 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Though it is correct that the party seeking modification of a child support award is generally required to allege and prove a "change in circumstances," judicial focus on the totality of pertinent circumstances is in accord with La.C.C.
  • Scherer v. Scherer 361 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    the court held that a consent alimony provision constitutes an award previously fixed and determined, and is not subject to adjustment or modification absent proof of a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties from the date of the rendition of the alimony judgment to the time of the trial of th
  • Stolier v. Stolier 357 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    NOTES [1] Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, La., .