DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

179 citing documents.

  • Crifasi v. Crifasi 650 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Martinez v. Martinez, supra at 545.
  • Allen v. Allen 648 So. 2d 359 La. 1994
  • Manzanares v. Manzanares 646 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Briscoe v. Briscoe 641 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Allen v. Allen 642 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    2d Cir.1993), both citing Civil Code Article 98 continues to contemplate substantial commissions or omissions violating a spouse's marital obligations and proximately causing or independently contributing to the breakup of the marriage.
  • Skannal v. Skannal 631 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Guillory v. Guillory 626 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Billingsley v. Billingsley 618 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Taylor v. *565 Taylor, (La.App.
  • Mathews v. Mathews 614 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    specifically held that to constitute fault, a wife's misconduct must not only be of a serious nature, but must also be an independent contributory or proximate cause of the separation.
  • Perret v. Saacks 612 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Baxter v. Baxter 607 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Currier v. Currier 599 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Counterpoising such a limited construction of "fault," however, : We have held that, under this statute [LSA-C.C.
  • Hornsby v. Hornsby 592 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    In interpreting this requirement, : "We have held that, under this statute respecting an award of alimony to a wife without `fault', the word `fault' contemplates conduct or substantial acts of commission or omission by the wife violative of her marital duties and responsibilities.
  • Bartholomew v. Bartholomew 593 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Gitschlag v. Gitschlag 593 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Tablada v. Tablada 590 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Batiste v. Batiste 586 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • Lachney v. Lachney 579 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Dean v. Dean 579 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Taylor v. Taylor 579 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Carroll v. Carroll 577 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Brewer v. Brewer 573 So. 2d 467 La. 1991
    Vicknair v. Vicknair, 237 La.
  • Wester v. Wester 564 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the Louisiana Supreme Court construed the word “fault” as used in LSA-C.C.
  • Crawford v. Trapani 563 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Shenk v. Shenk 563 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Wheelahan v. Wheelahan 557 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Nance v. Nance 548 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Lindsey v. Lindsey 546 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    : "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.
  • Batiste v. Batiste 548 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    marital duties and responsibilities.'" to fault which supports a grant of separation.
  • Vincent v. Vincent 544 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Moore v. Moore 544 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Coleman v. Coleman 541 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Jarman v. Jarman 540 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Lafitte v. Lafitte 535 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Gipson v. Gipson 536 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    as follows: We have held that, under this statute respecting an award of alimony to a wife without “fault,” the word “fault” contemplates conduct or substantial acts of commission or omission by the wife viola-tive of her marital duties and responsibilities.
  • Helms v. Helms 534 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In interpreting this requirement, : “We have held that, under this statute respecting an award of alimony to a wife without ‘fault’, the word ‘fault’ contemplates conduct or substantial acts of commission or omission by the wife violative of her marital duties and responsibilities.
  • Nugent v. Nugent 533 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Prudhomme v. Prudhomme 526 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Harrington v. Campbell, supra.
  • Robichaux v. Robichaux 525 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux 525 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Penning v. Bouzon 524 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Dolese v. Dolese 517 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Wynn v. Wynn 513 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Credeur v. Lalonde 511 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Brannon v. Brannon, supra
  • Musselman v. Musselman 508 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    : “We have held that, under this statute respecting an award of alimony to a wife without ‘fault’, the word ‘fault’ contemplates conduct or substantial acts of commission or omission by the wife violative of her marital duties and responsibilities.
  • Suhren v. Suhren 505 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Kendrick v. Kendrick, 236 La.
  • Anderson v. Anderson 504 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Martinez v. Martinez 503 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Cruse v. Cruse 498 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Brockhaus v. Brockhaus 499 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986