DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Frederic v. Frederic, 302 So. 2d 903.

73 citing documents.

  • Falterman v. Falterman 726 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • Wascom v. Wascom 713 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Veron v. Veron 657 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Preis v. Preis 631 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Kelly v. Kelly 596 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Grigsby v. Grigsby 573 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Jeansonne v. Jeansonne 550 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Hogan v. Hogan 549 So. 2d 267 La. 1989
    rmed the trial court's refusal to either increase or decrease alimony and child support, but it reversed the award of accumulated child support in the amount of $7,000, holding that an increase in child support ordered by a reviewing court becomes effective only from the date a (La.
  • Perez v. Hogan 534 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    5 Cir.1986), to hold that an increase in child support ordered by a reviewing court becomes effective only from the date a writ application is denied by the Supreme Court and the appellate court judgment becomes final.
  • Cressend v. Cressend 514 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • Osborne v. Osborne 512 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Guillory v. Guillory 490 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Lagars v. Lagars 491 So. 2d 5 La. 1986
  • Ledet v. Ledet 489 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    3rd Cir.1971); $94,450.00 in assets, income $21,373.00, assets increased by $50,000.00, (La.
  • Aucoin v. Aucoin 488 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Mathews v. Mathews 489 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    he cumulated the difference between the original award and the increased award ordered by this court, only from January 14, 1985, to May 1, 1985, the effective date of his judgment to reduce child support.
  • Key v. Willard 488 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Sonnier v. Sonnier 487 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Harlow v. Harlow 471 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Lopez v. Breaux 462 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Kaplan v. Kaplan 463 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Buxton v. Buxton 458 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Kaplan v. Kaplan 453 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Arabie v. Arabie 447 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Wasson v. Wasson 439 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Jordan v. Jordan 432 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Renfroe v. Renfroe 428 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Darbonne v. Darbonne 427 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • Morris v. Morris 426 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    2d Cir.1979), while not factually congruent to the instant case, are indistinguishable in all critical aspects and consistent with the rule herein applied.
  • Ramos v. Ramos 425 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Hamiter v. Hamiter 424 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Art. 3943, which provides for no suspensive appeal from an alimony award, and its progeny because this jurisprudence in effect denies him a right of review of the trial court’s determination of the award as required by Article 1 § 19 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution.
  • Benoit v. Benoit 424 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Oliver v. Oliver 421 So. 2d 1124 La. 1982
    is not controlling and the Court of Appeal judgment awarding alimony marks the beginning date for payment of alimony.
  • Hamiter v. Hamiter 419 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Oliver v. Oliver 417 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Mr. Oliver argues that Article 3943 of the Code of Civil Procedure [3] is controlling.
  • Oddo v. Oddo 416 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Peraino v. Peraino 414 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Hendershot v. Hendershot 407 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Woodall v. Woodall 397 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Kriger v. Kriger 397 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    This is true even though the judgment of the appellate court unequivocally announces that alimony is not owed at the outset.”
  • Sonfield v. Deluca 385 So. 2d 232 La. 1980
    we found that $94,450 in assets, $20,700 of which was cash, belonging to the ex-wife was sufficient means for her support and alimony was not allowed.
  • Kean v. Kean 388 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Frederic v. Frederic, *401 (1974).
  • MacIp v. Wallace 381 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    which was not considered by us in writing our original opinion in this case.
  • Tisby v. Tisby 382 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Having thus concluded, there is no reason to consider the question of the correctness of the trial court’s judgment as to amount
  • Langham v. Langham 381 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Sonfield v. Deluca 377 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    1974, , but Mrs. Frederic had $20,700 of liquid assets (cash) while our ex-wife is not shown to have any.
  • Rains v. Rains 376 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Bruner v. Bruner 373 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Pleasant v. Pleasant 362 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Loyacano v. Loyacano 358 So. 2d 304 La. 1978
    and Smith v. Smith, 217 La.