Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hebert v. Hebert, 351 So. 2d 1199.

75 citing documents.

Shirley Burks v. Wayne Hogan and Jahangir Jahangari Nejad La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana, Through Its Department of Transportation and Development v. Ruvim Kimakovkiy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Ernest M. Forbes v. Virginia F. Firmin La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Brandon Bell-Brayboy La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
Pamela McLellan and Woodrow Mulkey Versus Michael Yenni, Individually and as Temporary Representative of the Parish of Jefferson, … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
App. 1 Cir. 12/29/97); n1, (La.
Bourgeois v. Bazil 271 So. 3d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
See and compare Hebert v. Hebert , , 1200 (La.
Margaret C. Camalo v. Patricia Laura Estrada La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 26,093 (La.App.
Camalo v. Estrada 257 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Hebert v. Hebert , , 1200 (La.1977) ; Rodgers v. Rodgers , 26,093 (La.App.
Smith v. Smith 245 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
LaBove v. Theriot , ; Villaume v. Villaume, supra ; Hebert v. Hebert , ; Stevenson v. State Farm , (La.
Gloria's Ranch, L.L.C. v. Tauren Exploration, Inc. 223 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Freeman v. Zara's Food Store, Inc. 204 So. 3d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Wegmann v. Tramontin 186 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2016
1 Cir. 8/2/11); , writ denied, 2011-2110 *240 (La.1/13/12)
Gloria Welch v. Southwind Nursing & Rehabilitation Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Welch v. Southwind Nursing & Rehabilitation Center 177 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
James E. Stewart, Sr. v. Dianne Denley Stewart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Hebert v. 25 Hebert, Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, p. 5 26 (La.5/20/03)
Stewart v. Stewart 166 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
LaBove v. Theriot, 597 S6.2d 1007, 1010 (La.1992); Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, p. 5 (La.5/20/03), .
BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, L.L.C. 155 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
(“[T]he notion that the substance of the judge’s oral remarks should govern instead of the substance of the written judgment ...
Wells v. Wells 150 So. 3d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 12/9/98) , ; Starnes v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 94-1647 (La.App.
Clarence M. Leland v. Lafayette Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Leland v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 124 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Thomas v. Williams 115 So. 3d 715 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Hofler v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. 57 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
William E. Trotter, II v. Charles M. Fife, Jr. & Associates, L.L.C. and Charles M. Fife, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Trotter v. Charles M. Fife, Jr. & Associates, LLC 36 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
p. 1200 (La.1977) the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [W]e think that the legislature intended to prohibit alterations in the substance of the written judgment after it has been signed by the judge and not alterations in the judge’s oral statements from the bench.
Lirette v. Wickramasekera 13 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Bourgeois v. Kost, 2002-2785, p. 7-8 (La.5/20/03) ; (finding that trial court’s modification of support judgment from ordering the father to pay “the sum of $65 per week” to ordering payment of “the sum of $65.00 per week, of which $50.00 is to be paid in cash and $15.00 per week is to be paid for the payment of the mortgage on the home owned by the parties ..
Rozel Energy II, LLC v. Coupel 973 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Bourgeois v. Kost 846 So. 2d 692 La. 2003
Carlin v. Wallace 809 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Edwards v. Daugherty 776 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
the Supreme Court rejected the idea that a written judgment could be amended to reflect oral statements by the trial court, stating: A written judgment may be revised before it is signed thus eliminating many possibilities of error or misunderstanding.
Grimm v. Grimm 766 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Finding that a similar attempt to modify a support judgment would be an impermissible amendment to the substance of a final judgment, the Louisiana |4: A written judgment may be revised before it is signed thus eliminating many possibilities of error or misunderstanding.
Airline Skate Center, Inc. v. Cieutat 759 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
the Supreme Court rejected the idea that a written judgment could be amended to reflect oral statements by the trial court, stating: A written judgment may be revised before it is signed thus eliminating many possibilities of error or misunderstanding.
Stephenson v. Nations Credit Financial Services Corp. 754 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Alliance for Good Government, Inc. v. Jefferson Alliance for Good Government, Inc., 96-309, p. 7 (La.App.
Scruggs v. Minton Equipment Co., Inc. 722 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Succession of Hackney 707 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Further, in that case, (La.
Cryer v. Cryer 706 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 26,093, pp. 2-3 (La.App.
Stoffer v. Stoffer 693 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Alliance v. JEFFERSON ALLIANCE 683 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Pitard v. CLARENCE & STEVEN SCHMITTZEHE 679 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Martin v. David 685 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Magill v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY & CORR. 666 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Sellers v. Sellers 660 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Villaume v. Villaume, supra
Caracci v. Williams 654 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Villaume, supra; Hebert v. Melco Steel, Inc., supra.
Rodgers v. Rodgers 643 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Jones v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 619 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Comeaux v. City of Ville Platte 617 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
the court stated: Furthermore, we think that the legislature intended to prohibit alterations in the substance of the written judgment after it has been signed by the judge and not alterations in the judge's oral statements from the bench.
McLemore v. Fox 609 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
LaBove v. Theriot 597 So. 2d 1007 La. 1992
It is further the general rule that when an error of substance has crept into a final judgment, that error may be corrected by way of a timely motion for a new trial or by appeal
Williams v. Williams 590 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Gulfco Inv. Group, Inc. v. Jones 577 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Villaume v. Villaume, supra
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT v. Lobel 571 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990