DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Due v. Due, 342 So. 2d 161.

29 citing documents.

  • Kelly O. Orgeron v. Edward J. Orgeron, Jr. La. 2025
    2d 384, 397 (which found insurance renewal commissions received during the existence of the community on policies issued prior to the community were community property because they were the result of the former spouse’s “effort, skill and industry exerted during the community regime.”); -66 (La.
  • M. B. v. T. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    In support of this proposition, -66 (La.
  • Villarrubia v. Villarrubia 263 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    He also argues that the trial court's reliance on Due v. Due , (La.
  • St. Pierre v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. 102 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “death of the client itself terminates the client-attorney relationship by operation of law; therefore, there is no necessity for a rule requiring the attorney to withdraw when the client dies.” (-65 (La.1977); (La.App.
  • Distinguished LA. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. McWilliams 996 So. 2d 1036 La. 2008
    Although this court has recognized as community property the right of a spouse to receive money to become due in the future, even if the right is contingent, based on the effort of a spouse during the community, the survivor benefits at issue here are easily distinguishable.
  • Lanza v. Lanza 898 So. 2d 280 La. 2005
    (citing Yiannopoulos, supra ).
  • Delahaye v. Delahaye 936 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Futch v. Futch 643 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Gessner v. Gessner 614 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    The prime source of this premise is derived from a 1979
  • Borrello v. Borrello 614 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Fastabend v. Fastabend 606 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Williams v. Williams 590 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Accordingly, he awarded Bonnie one-half of the yearly percentage of premiums to be collected on a five year decreasing scale, e.g., one-half of 100% for year one; one-half of 80% for year two, (La.App.
  • Chaffin v. Chambers 577 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Rule 1.16, Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (LRPC); (La.App.
  • Succession of Wallace 574 So. 2d 348 La. 1991
    2d Cir.1985); -165 (La.1977); La.C.C.
  • Pellerin v. Pellerin 550 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Defley v. Defley 539 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    the assets of the community include obligations based on the right to receive money in the future.
  • Burrell v. Burrell 518 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Little v. Little 513 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    a husband—attorney's interest in a pending contingent fee contract was held to constitute a patrimonial asset which, if acquired during the marriage, fell into the community to the extent its value was based on services performed during the community.
  • Kees v. Kees 509 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Succession of Doty 496 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Michel v. Michel 484 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Depner v. Depner 478 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Kinsey v. Dixon 467 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Boyle v. Boyle 459 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Seale v. Sledge 430 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    We do not, however, reach the merits of this holding.” 220 So.2d at 85 Additionally, our Supreme Court, in dealing with the rights of spouses in contingency fee contracts upon dissolution of the community, made this observation: “In the everyday world, when a partnership dissolves or a partner withdraws from his law firm, the valuation of the interest of a lawyer in the contingent fee contracts and the approp
  • Matter of Succession of Dunham 393 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    However, a which held that a contingent fee contracted for in favor of a lawyer during marriage is community property, although the case from which the fee arose was not concluded until after the marriage was dissolved.
  • Martinez v. Posner, Martinez and Padgett 385 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. 373 So. 2d 102 La. 1979
    Due v. Due, La., (1977); Pocius v. Halvorsen, 30 Ill.2d 73 , 195 N.E.2d 137 , 13 A.L.R.3d 662 (1963).
  • Sims v. Sims 358 So. 2d 919 La. 1978