Cited by

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

196 citing documents.

Defley v. Defley 539 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Succession of Egan 543 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
the interest of a spouse in her husband's retirement and held such retirement benefits to be an asset of the community.
Rollison v. Rollison 541 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Roberts v. Roberts 542 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Hebert v. Hughes Tool Co. 535 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Rose v. Rose 535 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Johnson v. Johnson 532 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Lachney v. Lachney 529 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Recent scholarly commentaries suggest that in attempting classification of disability payments an examination should be carefully made to determine whether the benefits represent deferred compensation in the nature of retirement or pension income and, if so, and T.L.
Byrd v. Byrd 528 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Anderson v. Anderson 520 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
our Supreme Court established guidelines and computations for determining the respective parties interest in pension payments.
Scott v. Scott 519 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Eskine v. Eskine 518 So. 2d 505 La. 1988
Burrell v. Burrell 518 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Lamartiniere v. Lamartiniere 520 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Little v. Little 513 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
While these cases involved benefits which vested by the date of termination of the community
Mara v. Mara 513 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
the plaintiff would be entitled to benefits as follows: *1223 Portion of pension attributable to creditable service during existence of community (4 years 10 months) × ½ × annuity Pension attributable to total (or lump sum creditable service payment) (still undetermined) Mortgage Payments and Rental Facto
Kees v. Kees 509 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
The cases cited by appellant, and others, are not persuasive.
Howard v. Howard 499 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Henson v. Henson 499 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
King v. King 493 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Roy v. Landry 489 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The Supreme Court of Louisiana, per Tate, J., applied the principles laid down in T.L.
Lovell v. Lovell 490 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
at 923 (La.1978), which treated the rights of the spouses under a United States government retirement plan upon dissolution of the community, is relevant: At the time of the dissolution of the community, as well as of the present date (at which, we are informed by the briefs, the husband is still employed as an air t
Michel v. Michel 484 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
recites the following rule which has been applied by the trial court: "Accordingly, except in an isolated decision to be noted below, our courts have uniformly held that, at the dissolution of the community, the non-employed spouse is entitled to judgment recognizing that spouse's interest in proceeds from
Rose v. Rose 483 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Campbell v. Campbell 474 So. 2d 1339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Taylor v. Taylor 473 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
The chronology of the petition for separation and the establishment of the plan presents a novel question, and T.L.
Ramstack v. Krieger 470 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Hunter v. Hunter 468 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Appellee argues that the amount shown represents one-half the value so as to reflect the non-cash transfer or valuation given to Mr. Hunter.
Lewis v. Lewis 467 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Russell v. Russell 465 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
for Justice Tate's discussion of the history of such pensions as community property.
Matter of Succession of Sims 464 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Walker v. Walker 463 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State Police Retirement System); 5 USC 8345-6 (federal retirement system) [2] ; LRS 17:572; (La.App.
Lowe v. Lowe 463 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
McCOY v. McCOY 460 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
James & Company, are controlling in this case, and, accordingly, Louisiana State Employee’s Retirement System’s pension funds are community property.
McCoy v. McCoy 460 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
James & Company, (La.
Inzinna v. Inzinna 456 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
for Justice Tate's discussion of the history of such pensions as community property.
Simmons v. Simmons 453 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Jett v. Jett 449 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Rohring v. Rohring 441 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Zeigler v. Zeigler 420 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
La. State Troopers Ass'n v. La. State Police, Etc. 417 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
T. L. James & Co., (La.App.
Miller v. Miller 405 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Succession of Jackson 402 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
the court indicated that the non-employed spouse was entitled to share in the proceeds of the annuity contract which had accrued during the community.
Kennedy v. Kennedy 391 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Thrash v. Thrash 387 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
[2] In T. L. James & Company, the Supreme Court clearly set forth the guidelines to be followed in determining the community's interest in deferred compensation plans, be they private or public, acquired during the existence of the community.
Ware v. Ware 365 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
4 Cir. 1974, , writ refused , is questioned by Sims v. Sims, La.1978, n. 1 .