Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Imperial v. Hardy, 302 So. 2d 5.

72 citing documents.

Moffett v. Moffett 911 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Salvatierra v. Calderon 836 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Amin v. Bakhaty 798 So. 2d 75 La. 2001
Amin v. Bakhaty 812 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Jurado v. Brashear 782 So. 2d 575 La. 2001
[14] The concept of continuing
Jurado v. Brashear 764 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equipment Co. 748 So. 2d 399 La. 1999
(citing Davis v. Davis, 238 La.
Rando v. Rando 722 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Anderson v. Anderson 718 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
and the current version of La.Code Civ.
Prine v. Prine 687 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Grantham v. Dawson 666 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Coleman E. Adler & Sons, (La.App.
Norwood v. Craig 658 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Palombo v. Palombo 643 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Warren v. McNair 622 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Matter of Spence 600 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Miles v. Perroncel 598 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Perry v. Ponder, 604 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1980)
Atkins v. Atkins 588 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Barber v. Profit 576 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
award of alimony incidental to the previous divorce suit when the court had jurisdiction of the defendant, the appellate court reasoned that the suit for post-divorce alimony was a separate proceeding from the previous suit for divorce and held that the trial court did not retain personal jurisdiction over the defendant under the theory of continuing jurisdiction
Barbry v. Dauzat 576 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
See, Gowins v. Gowins, supra ; (La.App.
Kohnke v. Kohnke 569 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Girau v. Girau 545 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
is still applicable in Louisiana: Once personal jurisdiction has attached for an award of child support, jurisdiction continues for purposes of modification of that award in the future.
State ex rel. Louisiana Division of Health & Human Resources v. Simmons 542 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
STATE EX REL. LOUISIANA DHHR v. Simmons 542 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
White v. White 543 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Gowins v. Gowins, supra; Allen v. Allen, 484 So.
Bumgardner v. Bumgardner 521 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
[Cites and footnotes omitted] [ 466 So.2d at 36, 37 ]
Little v. Little 513 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
and Michigan Trust v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346 , 33 S.Ct.
Tatum v. Tatum 508 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
McCawley v. McCawley 499 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Crum v. Spencer-Harris Machine & Tool Co. 499 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
6 and 7; ” (Emphasis ours).
Duehring v. Vasquez 490 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Allen v. Allen 484 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Drago v. Drago 477 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The wife contends, however, that the original jurisdiction over the husband over the marital status, (La.App.
Keys v. Box 476 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Franklin v. Franklin 470 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Gowins v. Gowins 466 So. 2d 32 La. 1985
Michigan Trust v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346 , 33 S.Ct.
Staton v. Staton 467 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
This rule was recognized as emanating from the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
Gowins v. Gowins 457 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
The concept of “continuing jurisdiction”
State, Through Dept. of Health v. King 447 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
award of alimony incidental to the previous divorce suit when the court had jurisdiction of the defendant, the appellate court reasoned that the suit for post-divorce alimony was a separate proceeding from the previous suit for divorce and held that the trial court did not retain personal jurisdiction over the defendant under the theory of continuing jurisdiction
Price v. Price 445 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
service of process on her attorney was sufficient.
Meunier v. Meunier 437 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Stuckey v. Stuckey 434 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Tureaud v. Tureaud 427 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
which we consider stands for the approval of such a premise.
Nertavich v. Nertavich 422 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Bagshaw v. Sieja 422 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Goldstein v. Goldstein 409 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
As the Supreme Court stated in Imperial v. Hardy, [
Mayrson v. Chaplin 402 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Satterlee v. Satterlee 402 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
See Imperial v. Hardy, La., .
Distinguished Seales v. Verrett 397 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Imperial v. Hardy, La., .
In re Watts 395 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Bearden v. Bearden 393 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981