Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pearce v. Pearce, 348 So. 2d 75.

179 citing documents.

Susana F. Moody v. Ross Moody La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Derek H. Tucker v. Renate Tucker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Stephanie Woodside Jennings v. Quincy Maurice Jennings La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
App. 4th Cir. 1980) ( (La.
Ryan S. Curry Versus Michelle W. Curry La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
Waites v. Waites 256 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Delesdernier , 12-38, p. 12, 95 So.3d at 596 ; see also Pearce v. Pearce , , 78 (La.
John M. Price, II v. Kellie Vercher Price La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Welch v. Welch 244 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Voiselle v. Voiselle 206 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
IsWithin the context of final periodic support, a spouse is not deprived of spousal support merely because he or she “was not totally blameless in the marital discord.” (La.
Tiffany M. Voiselle v. John T. Voiselle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
2 Within the context of final periodic support, a spouse is not deprived of spousal support merely because he or she “was not totally blameless in the marital discord.”
Brown v. Brown 200 So. 3d 887 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Stowe, supra; King, supra; Hunter, supra.
Matthews v. Matthews 184 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Smith, 31 So.3d at 462 .
Michael Dale Neff v. Rae Jones Neff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
A wife is not deprived of alimony after divorce simply because she was not totally blameless in the marital discord.”
Neff v. Neff 162 So. 3d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
A wife is not deprived of alimony after divorce simply because she was not totally blameless in the marital discord.”
Dunia Lorena Carcamo Nieves v. Pedro Nieves La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
A wife is not deprived of alimony after divorce simply because she was not totally blameless in the marital discord.”
Theron Pitre v. Terri Greene Pitre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: In the area of domestic relations, much discretion must be vested in the trial judge and particularly in evaluating the weight of evidence which is to be resolved primarily on the basis of the credibility of witnesses.
Eddie Rusk v. Delores Rusk La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
A wife is not deprived of alimony after divorce simply because she was not totally blameless in the marital discord.”
Rusk v. Rusk 102 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
A wife is not deprived of alimony after divorce simply because she was not totally blameless in the marital discord.”
Katherine Trahan Ashworth v. Larry Leroy Ashworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Ashworth v. Ashworth 86 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Hall v. Hall 67 So. 3d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Chandler v. Chandler 37 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Mizell v. Mizell, 37,-004 (La.App.2d Cir.3/7/03), .
Smith v. Smith 31 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
McKenna v. McKenna 27 So. 3d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
A wife is not deprived of alimony after divorce simply because she was not totally blameless in the marital discord.”
Hunter v. Hunter 21 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Blane Guillory v. Rachel Cefalu Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
see also Wolff v. Wolff, 07-332 (La.App.
Guillory v. Guillory 7 So. 3d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
see also Wolff v. Wolff, 07-332 (La.App.
Davis v. Davis 997 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Mizell v. Mizell 942 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Shaunn Caillier McCorvey v. Derriel Carlton McCorvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
4 Cir.1976); Sander v. Brousseau, 00-0098 (La.App.
McCorvey v. McCorvey 922 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
4 Cir.1976); Sander v. Brousseau, 00-0098 (La.App.
Armstrong v. Rayford 902 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Washington v. Washington 846 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Washington v. Washington 846 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Mizell v. Mizell 839 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Desai v. Desai 817 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Sander v. Brousseau 772 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Mayes v. Mayes 743 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Coleman v. Robinson 746 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Goodnight v. Goodnight 735 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Bourg v. Bourg 701 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Rochon v. Rochon 702 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Bruce v. Bruce 696 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Simon v. Simon 696 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Roussel v. Roussel 688 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Wagner v. Wagner 686 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux , 95-671 p. 5 (La.
Langley v. Langley 681 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Veron v. Veron 688 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
With regard to reviewing factual issues in cases such as this, made the following statements: "In the area of domestic relations, much discretion must be vested in the trial judge and particularly in evaluating the weight of evidence which is to be resolved primarily on the basis of the credibility of witnesses.
Caldwell v. Caldwell 672 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Skannal v. Skannal, 25467 (La.
Manzanares v. Manzanares 656 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Unkel v. Unkel 651 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995