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.

  • Miller v. Miller 499 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In the area of domestic relations, the trial judge is vested with much discretion, particularly in evaluating the weight of evidence which is to be resolved primarily on the basis of the credibility of witnesses
  • Patrick v. Patrick 496 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Gravois v. Gravois 495 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Lagars v. Lagars 491 So. 2d 5 La. 1986
    [3] In interpreting the issue of fault, : 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.
  • Sanchez v. Sanchez 490 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Furthermore, indicated 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."
  • Wilcox v. Bonura 490 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Swilley v. Swilley 489 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Ford v. Ford 488 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Smiley v. Smiley 488 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    : 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.
  • Sonnier v. Sonnier 487 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    (1977): “ * * * 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.
  • Vaughn v. Vaughn 487 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    (5th Cir.1985); Helm v. Walker, supra; (1st Cir. 1980).
  • Veron v. Luquette 487 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Pearce v. Pearce , (La.1977).” The Court went on to say: “Verbal abuse can constitute cruel treatment if it is particularly vicious and persistent to the extent it renders the common life insupportable.
  • Hawkins v. Hawkins 485 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    the supreme court, at page 77, defined fault as: “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.” and, at page
  • Montet v. Dronet 484 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Hansen v. Hansen 483 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Nowlin v. Nowlin 482 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Land v. Land 483 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Ourso v. Ourso 482 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Prosper v. Smith 482 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Oster v. Oster 480 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    The Supreme Court of Louisiana, stated: "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."
  • Bundick v. Dennison 480 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Kendrick v. Kendrick, 236 La.
  • Church v. Teasdel 482 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Halley v. Halley 480 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Zeringue v. Zeringue 479 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Finch v. Finch 479 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Dooley v. Dooley 478 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Helm v. Walker 477 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Roberts v. Roberts 474 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Bergeron v. Munsch 471 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Spence v. Spence 465 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Walsh v. Walsh 465 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Gibson v. Gibson 464 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • Broussard v. Broussard 462 So. 2d 1386 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Boudreaux v. Boudreaux 460 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    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.
  • Lamb v. Lamb 460 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Collins v. Collins 458 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Higginbotham v. Higginbotham 457 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Baham v. Baham 456 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • Teasdel v. Teasdel 454 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Jergins v. Jergins 451 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Kaplan v. Kaplan 453 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Brannon v. Brannon, supra; (La.App.
  • Creech v. Creech 449 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Hocke v. Hocke 449 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Lewis v. Lewis 446 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "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.
  • Conner v. Conner 449 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Lester v. Lester 446 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Schroeder v. Leitz 444 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    our Supreme Court said: “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.” The defendant’s specific allegatio
  • Tate v. Tate 442 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • Watson v. Watson 442 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • Jones v. Jones 442 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    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.