DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sims v. Sims, 358 So. 2d 919.

196 citing documents.

  • Allen v. Allen 925 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    She claimed a share of 27.5% this would have entitled her to a proportionate monthly sum of $687.50.
  • Vicknair v. FIRE. PENSION AND RELIEF FUND 907 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    the court states that "The community's dissolution before such date (date of retirement) does not substitute for the employee's retirement (or separation or death) as the event which fixes the employer's liability and which causes payments to become due.
  • Paige B. Sullivan v. Charles P. Sullivan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    After repeated amicable demands, Mrs. Sullivan filed a rule to establish her share in 1
  • Delahaye v. Delahaye 936 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    2338 and 2369.2; Futch v. Futch, 26-149, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Sullivan v. Sullivan 892 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So.2[d] 118 (La.1991).
  • Teachers' Retirement System v. Gonzalez 892 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Bordenave v. Bordenave 869 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Fredy Rivera-Santos v. Ada Elba Melendez Rivera-Santos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    The former husband, Fredy Rivera-Santos, appeals the trial court’s
  • Rivera-Santos v. Rivera-Santos 862 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    The former husband, Fredy Rivera-Santos, (La.
  • Day v. Day 858 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Smith v. Smith 839 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    The trial court found that since the money in the retirement account contained contributions from community funds while Virginia and Jerome were married, the entire balance, including the DROP program contributions
  • Sparcello v. Heno 848 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Appellant argues she is entitled to the increased value of these funds which accrued after the termination of the community, and she contends that the trial court erred in ignoring the hold *613 .
  • Goetzman v. Goetzman 835 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Donaldson v. Donaldson 831 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • McKinstry v. McKinstry 824 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Relevant to this appeal, it awarded Byron a
  • Walker v. Walker 817 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • Lodrigue v. Lodrigue 817 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    The trial court rendered judgment classifying the funds deposited in DROP prior to January 28, 1994, but classifying the funds deposited in DROP after the termination of the community of acquets and gains as Mr. Bailey's separate property.
  • Carter v. Carter 813 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • Gautney v. Gautney 814 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    At trial of this dispute, Eleanor presented evidence that she was entitled to 30.5%
  • Jennings v. Turner 803 So. 2d 963 La. 2002
    DECREE For the reasons stated above
  • Lupberger v. Lupberger 805 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Criticized Knighten v. Knighten 809 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Carlin v. Wallace 809 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Bullock v. Owens 796 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Zalfen v. Albright 791 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Sullivan v. Sullivan 801 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    A judgment partitioning the community property was filed December 11, 1990, wherein the trial court ordered that each party had an interest in "any retirement plan, and in any annuity or lump sum payment paid to either party"
  • Robinson v. Robinson 778 So. 2d 1105 La. 2001
    La.Civ.Code art. 2338; (La.
  • Hansel v. Holyfield 779 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • Wright v. Wright 770 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Sanders v. Sanders 780 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • Couvillion v. Couvillion 769 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    art. 2338; Bordes v. Bordes, 98-1004, at 3 (La.4/13/99), ; (La.
  • McCarroll v. McCarroll 767 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    COMMENCEMENT DATE FOR DONALD MCCARROLL'S PARTICIPATION IN THE CHEVRON RETIREMENT PLAN To determine Mrs. McCarroll's interest in Mr. McCarroll's pension, the trial court applied the "Sims" formula, an equation jurisprudentially established in the case that bears its name
  • Hannan v. Hannan 761 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Peters v. Haley 762 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Martinez v. Demontluzin 766 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The trial court found that the issues raised by the appellant’s petition, namely, the order of distribution of the appellant’s pension fund as a community asset and the partition of this asset pursuant to the formula pronounced in Sims vs. Sims, had been previously decided and affirmed on appeal; therefore, the issue was res judicata.
  • Thurston v. Thurston 740 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    The judge asserted that instead
  • Peairs v. Peairs 741 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Bordes v. Bordes, 98-1004 (La.4/13/99)
  • Bordes v. Bordes 730 So. 2d 443 La. 1999
  • Blanchard v. Blanchard 731 So. 2d 175 La. 1999
    Resolution of this issue necessarily turns on whether it is proper in this case to divide the pension using the "present cash value" method, or to defer defendant's benefit distribution until Ms. Blanchard retires under the "fixed percentage"
  • Heck v. Heck 728 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Bailey v. Bailey, 97-1178, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), ; (La.
  • Lee v. Lee 727 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    § 231 et seq., shall be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and pursuant to the terms of the Railroad Retirement Act.
  • Schlosser v. Behan 722 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • Bodenheimer v. Freitag 709 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Further, the trial court was ordered to award the parties’
  • Succession of Silbernagel 708 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Bailey v. Bailey 708 So. 2d 354 La. 1998
    At the partition trial, the parties stipulated that Mrs. Bailey was entitled, as of the date Mr. Bailey entered the DROP program, to one-half of 53.65 as the non-employee spouse's share of the pension rights attributable to the employee spouse's employment during the existence of the community.
  • Bordes v. Bordes 707 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    La.Civ.Code art. 2338; T.L.
  • Hyde v. Hyde 697 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    After Mr. Hyde reaches age sixty-five (65), providing Mrs. Hyde with a 49.82% interest in Mr. Hyde's retirement benefits.
  • Blanchard v. Blanchard 697 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court considered a second case, now bringing before the Court the unanswered questions in T.L.
  • Johnson v. Wetherspoon 694 So. 2d 203 La. 1997
  • Palisi v. City of New Orleans Fire Dept. 690 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997