DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Adams v. Adams, 389 So. 2d 381.

86 citing documents.

  • Susana F. Moody v. Ross Moody La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    In Tucker, 344 So.3d at 812, our court explained legal fault: the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that “fault” for purposes of barring alimony (now final periodic spousal support) is synonymous with the fault grounds for separation and divorce under La.Civ.Code arts.
  • Derek H. Tucker v. Renate Tucker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that “fault” for purposes of barring alimony (now final periodic spousal support) is synonymous with the fault grounds for separation and divorce under La.Civ.Code arts.
  • Matthews v. Matthews 184 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    that spouse may be awarded final periodic support”); Smith, 31 So.3d at 462 .
  • Smith v. Smith 31 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
    that spouse may be awarded final periodic support")
  • Palmisano v. Palmisano 10 So. 3d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Hammack v. Hammack 778 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    1 Cir. 9/25/98), [3] Allen v. Allen, 94-1090 (La.12/12/94)
  • Sciortino v. Sciortino 773 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Bruce v. Bruce 696 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Baxter, 607 So.2d at 825 .
  • McLaughlin v. McLaughlin 691 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux 668 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • Manzanares v. Manzanares 656 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Unkel v. Unkel 651 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Allen v. Allen 648 So. 2d 359 La. 1994
    Vicknair v. Vicknair, 237 La.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    Before the recent codal revisions pertaining to dissolution of marriages (Acts 1990, Nos. 1008, 1009), the Louisiana Supreme Court defined alimony preclusive "fault" to be synonymous with the grounds for separation (then LSA-C.C.
  • Hornsby v. Hornsby 592 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    the Supreme Court set out the criteria for finding freedom from fault on the part of a spouse claiming alimony under LSA-C.C.
  • Gitschlag v. Gitschlag 593 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Former La.Civ.Code art. 160; [3] (La.App.
  • Taylor v. Taylor 579 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Brewer v. Brewer 573 So. 2d 467 La. 1991
  • Green v. Green 567 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Wester v. Wester 564 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Bernard v. Bernard 554 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    (4th Cir.1982); (5th Cir.1983).
  • Nance v. Nance 548 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • 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.
  • Mattern v. Mattern 545 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Tampira v. Sottiurai 539 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Jarman v. Jarman 540 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Kathleen's actions were more grievous than those of Mrs. Adams, Adams v. Adams but at least as grievous as Mrs. Cruse's, Cruse v. Cruse (La.App.
  • Eppling v. Eppling 537 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    The court concluded, and we agree: The conduct of both these parties exceeds normal arguments and bickering which may be insufficient to support such an action[,] (La.
  • Helms v. Helms 534 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that conduct sufficient “to entitle one spouse to a separation or divorce under [La.Civ.Code Arts.
  • Prudhomme v. Prudhomme 526 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Robichaux v. Robichaux 525 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Further, concluded that "fault" for purposes of permanent alimony preclusion is only such conduct on the part of one spouse which would entitle the other spouse to a separation or divorce under La.Civ.Code arts.
  • Roland v. Roland 519 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Price v. Price 521 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux 525 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Roberts v. Roberts 519 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • 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 duti
  • Harrison v. Harrison 503 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • Lagars v. Lagars 491 So. 2d 5 La. 1986
  • Williams v. Williams 491 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Sanchez v. Sanchez 490 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Our Supreme Court held that mere accusations by the wife of an illicit affair between her husband and another woman and unintrusive rides past her husband's work place, did not constitute acts of such severe nature as to allow a judgment of separation against her on the ground of cruelty
  • Wilcox v. Bonura 490 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Vaughn v. Vaughn 487 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Land v. Land 483 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Halley v. Halley 480 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Dooley v. Dooley 478 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985