DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

141 citing documents.

  • Little v. Little 513 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    James & Co., an employer provoked a concursus proceeding against the widow and heirs of the employee for distribution of proceeds from his profit-sharing and retirement plan and insurance policy.
  • American Health & Life Ins. v. Binford 511 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 499 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Roy v. Landry 489 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    James & Company, entitles her to "collect one-half of all the payments arising from contributions made during the community even if no payments are available from the plan until well after dissolution of the community" in addition to "one-half of any interest earned on funds contributing to the plan during the existence of t
  • Lovell v. Lovell 490 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    James & Co., the rights of Mr. Lovell in that profit-sharing plan were community property.
  • Michel v. Michel 484 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    James & and decisions therein cited."—at 922, 923.
  • Rose v. Rose 483 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Matter of Succession of Lindsey 477 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Taylor v. Taylor 473 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • Trustees of Kullman, Lang, Inman & Bee v. Stout 470 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    James & Co., as its authority for the distribution of the funds as follows: MONEY PURCHASE PENSION FUND (Distribution) Francine D. Stout - Community Interest $25,606.47 Francine D. Stout - Beneficiary 12,803.23 Francine D. Stout - Administratrix 12,803.25 TOTAL $51,212.94 SELF EMPLOYED RETIREMENT TRUST Separate $ 6,144.6
  • Lewis v. Lewis 467 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    James & as authority for his decision that the wife should receive a one-half interest in the pension plan attributable to Mr. Lewis' employment during the existence of the community.
  • Matter of Succession of Sims 464 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    James & Co., (La.App.
  • McCOY v. McCOY 460 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    James & Company, are controlling in this case, and, accordingly, Louisiana State Employee’s Retirement System’s pension funds are community property.
  • McCoy v. McCoy 460 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    James & Company, (La.
  • Moreau v. Moreau 457 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Inzinna v. Inzinna 456 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • Simmons v. Simmons 453 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    James & Co., the Supreme Court set forth new guidelines to be followed in determining the parties' interests in deferred compensation plans.
  • Jett v. Jett 449 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Tucker v. District Attorney's Retirement System 445 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    James & Co., the Supreme Court, on rehearing, held that “although the contractual beneficiary may receive in full ownership the share of the funds passing to him by virtue of the decedent’s contractual designation of him as beneficiary, he does so with the obligation to account to any complaining forced heir or spouse in
  • Succession of Tucker 445 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    James & Co., the Supreme Court *512 clearly set forth the guidelines to be followed in determining the community's interest, if any, in deferred compensation plans, be they public or private.
  • Rohring v. Rohring 441 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    James & Co., (La.App.
  • Whatley v. Whatley 439 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Lord v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Burrell 429 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    James & Co., per Tate, J. at page 855 et seq., deposited the monies in the registry of court and provoked a concursus proceeding to determine all questions of entitlement thereto.
  • In the Matter of Succession of Dunham 428 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • La. State Troopers Ass'n v. La. State Police, Etc. 417 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    T. L. James & Co., (La.App.
  • In the Case of Hamner 411 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Succession of Jackson 402 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    1st Cir. 1976); T. L. James and Co., (La.
  • Jackson v. State, Tchrs.'Retire. System 407 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Kennedy v. Kennedy 391 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Thrash v. Thrash 387 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    [2] In T. L. James & Company, the Supreme Court clearly set forth the guidelines to be followed in determining the community's interest in deferred compensation plans, be they private or public, acquired during the existence of the community.
  • Mahl v. Board of Trustees 376 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Plaintiff contends that these benefits are partially the result of contributions made by Mahl, Sr. and remuneration earned by him during his first marriage, so that there is an interest belonging to the community between Mahl, Sr. and plaintiff’s mother identifiable and subject to evaluation in accordance with the decision and formula set forth in T. L. James & Co.
  • Mire v. Ormet Corp. 371 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    * In contending that a disability pension should be treated as wages defendant argues that a pension, like hourly wages, is not a gratuity but is earned income, T. L. James & Co., a pension is commonly regarded as deferred wages, Daniel v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc., 410 F.Supp.
  • Sims v. Sims 358 So. 2d 919 La. 1978
    titious valuation had been appropriate, it overlooks that the contributions which established the pension rights, under the actual circumstance of continued employment, included not only the employee's contributions but also the matching contributions by employer, which we have previously held represent an asset acquired by community earning and efforts, T. L. James & Co.
  • Corpus Christi Parish Credit Union v. Martin 358 So. 2d 295 La. 1978
  • Sims v. Sims 349 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In T. L. James v. Montgomery, La., (1976), the court was dealing with the distribution of proceeds accrued by the death of an employee, not with the partition of a community.
  • Lacaze v. Tennessee Life Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Counsel for plaintiff-appellant in brief states that the closest case in point is T. L. James & Co.
  • Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. 344 So. 2d 1353 La. 1977
    The nature— gratuitous payments versus delayed compensation—of employer contributions to similar retirement and profit-sharing plans was at issue in T. L. James & although in a somewhat different context.
  • Due v. Due 342 So. 2d 161 La. 1977
  • Flanner v. Succession of Flanner 338 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    As the Louisiana Supreme Court pointed out in the recent case of T. L. James & Co., transfer of a property interest with such bonds is valid but is: “ .
  • Connell v. Connell 331 So. 2d 4 La. 1976
    However, recently in T. L. James & Co., Inc., et al. v. Montgomery, et al., rehearing granted on other grounds, the rule of Butler v. Butler was recognized and approved in these words: "As already noted, this insurance policy (a group life policy) was acquired before decedent's marriage to his second wife, and thus was part of his separate estate.