Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite TL James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery, 332 So. 2d 834.

141 citing documents.

Kevin Cope and Roger Laine v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and A&M College La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
1992) ( holding plaintiff was entitled to receive his employer' s contributions to his state retirement system for the period he was discharged without cause); and T. L. James & Co., Inc., v. Montgomery, ( La.
Noel W. Yates v. Lisa J. Yates La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
James & Co., v. Montgomery, (matured defined contribution plandetermined based on the contributions the employee made during the community), (defined benefit plandivided the amount of time in the plan during the community by the total number of work years to determine a percentage earned duri
Succession of Geronimo Ji Jaga La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
New Orleans Fire Fighters Pension & Relief Fund v. City of New Orleans 242 So. 3d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
James & ; (Ala.1987) ; Gesina v. General Electric Corp., [ 162 Ariz. 35 ] 780 P.2d 1376 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989) ; Sterling Drug Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark.
Michael Dunn and the Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Kenner Fire Fighters Association Local 1427 Iaff v. City … 187 So. 3d 404 La. 2016
Dean Born v. City of Slidell 180 So. 3d 1227 La. 2015
James & Co., (succession); Taylor v. Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff’s Retirement Bd., 265 Or.
Cleaver v. Western National Life Insurance Co. 180 So. 3d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
James & Co., "[The] court has refused to extend the rationale of the cases dealing with life insurance to other problems where the conflict is between the urge to bring about freedom of disposition and the fundamental and elementary principles of forced heirship and the community property system embodied in our Con
Tucker v. Tucker 103 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Jack L. Duty v. Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
City of Breaux Bridge v. Charles Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
James & Co., Inc. v. 3 Montgomery, (La.
Arthur Waller v. State of La., Department of Health & Hospitals La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Waller v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals 79 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Foshee v. Georgia Gulf Chemicals & Vinyls, L.L.C. 42 So. 3d 346 La. 2010
Gorham v. Gorham 31 So. 3d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
James & Co., (on rehearing); Minvielle , 93-1835 at p. 5, 638 So.2d at 1189 .
Dill v. 32nd Judicial District Court Judicial Clerk's Fund 27 So. 3d 1056 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
LA. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. McWilliams 996 So. 2d 1036 La. 2008
James & Co., Sims, supra; -63 (La.1992); Johnson v. Wetherspoon, supra ; Bailey v. Bailey, 97-1178 (La.2/6/98), .
Wahlborg v. Wahlborg 973 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery; (La.
Barberot v. US Life Ins. Co. in City Ny 945 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Overton v. Shell Oil Co. 937 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Melancon v. Melancon 928 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
James & Co., (on rehearing).
Fishbein v. STATE EX REL. LSU 898 So. 2d 1260 La. 2005
James & Co., (on rehearing), this court concluded that an employer's contribution into a retirement-type plan "is not a purely gratuitous act, but it is in the nature of additional remuneration to the employee who meets the conditions of the plan.
Fishbein v. State ex rel. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center 898 So. 2d 1260 La. 2005
James & Co., (on rehearing), this court ^concluded that an employer’s contribution into a retirement-type plan “is not a purely gratuitous act, but it is in the nature of additional remuneration to the employee who meets the conditions of the plan.
Paige B. Sullivan v. Charles P. Sullivan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
When 18 Sims, 358 So.2d at 922 (quoting T. L. James & Co., ).
Sullivan v. Sullivan 892 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Teachers' Retirement System v. Gonzalez 892 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Re Succession of Halligan 887 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Graves v. Garden State Life Ins. 887 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
McClanahan v. McClanahan 868 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
James Co., formula for dividing retirement accounts, none of the account should be considered a community asset.
Talbot v. Talbot 864 So. 2d 590 La. 2003
Fowler v. Fowler 861 So. 2d 181 La. 2003
James & and Standard Life Ins.
Day v. Day 858 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Trigg v. PENNINGTON OIL CO., INC. 835 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
James & (Ala.1987); Gesina v. General Electric Corp., 162 Ariz. 35 , 780 P.2d 1376 (Ct.App.1989); Sterling Drug Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark.
Carter v. Carter 813 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
James & Co., (on rehearing).
Sullivan v. Sullivan 801 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
James & which set forth the standard to be used in deciding the community property rights to ordinary retirement plans, the supreme court determined that DROP proceeds are part of an employee spouse's retirement benefits and are apportionable between community property and
Corley v. Baden 781 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
James & Co., on rehearing, the supreme court set forth the rationale for the characterization of retirement proceeds as community property.
Robinson v. Robinson 778 So. 2d 1105 La. 2001
James & Co., that an employee's contractual pension right is not a gratuity but a property interest earned by him.
Hansel v. Holyfield 779 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Biondo v. Biondo 769 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In Re Succession of Moss 769 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Hannan v. Hannan 761 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
McCarroll v. McCarroll 767 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
James & Co., and Sims, the supreme court held the period of "creditable service" by an employee in a pension or retirement plan is the period of time which determines the portion attributable to the community.
Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America v. Oates 756 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
James & Co., American Health & Life Ins.
Bordes v. Bordes 730 So. 2d 443 La. 1999
Fairbanks v. Tulane University 731 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
James & Co., the Supreme Court held that the contributions by an employer to an employee's retirement and profit-sharing plans are not purely gratuitous; instead, they constitute additional remuneration to the employee who meets the conditions of the plan.
Heck v. Heck 728 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
James & Co., Inc., v. Montgomery, (La.
Simpson v. Goodman 727 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
1st Cir.), affirmed in part and reversed in part
Lee v. Lee 727 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Schlosser v. Behan 722 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
White v. Broussard 720 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
James & Co., Inc., et al v. Montgomery, et al., : No restitution is due the community for the premiums paid by decedent.
Succession of Silbernagel 708 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
James & the court stated, "[R]ecognizing this Court's previous decisions that declined to distinguish between retirement and survivor benefits, we likewise decline to now treat the payment of retirement and survivor benefits differently....