DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gowins v. Gowins, 466 So. 2d 32.

27 citing documents.

  • McCann v. McCann 93 So. 3d 544 La. 2012
  • McCann v. McCann 77 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Golden v. Waterhouse 953 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • Sanders v. Sanders 812 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Jurado v. Brashear 782 So. 2d 575 La. 2001
    (Lemmon, J., concurring).
  • Peters v. Haley 762 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Blackwell v. Blackwell 606 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Heggins v. Heggins 590 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Martin v. Willis 584 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Kambur v. Kambur 583 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    which found that a court did have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a proceeding to enforce a community property settlement where the defendant had participated in the original divorce action.
  • Barbry v. Dauzat 576 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Arkoma Associates v. Carden 572 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • White v. White 543 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Ross v. Schultz 542 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    -35 (La.1985), the Louisiana Supreme Court distinguished domicile and residence: Domicile and residence are two separate concepts.
  • Ober v. Bounds 528 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Bumgardner v. Bumgardner 521 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    the Supreme Court determined that Louisiana had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, Mr. Gowins, on the basis of his consent to the jurisdiction of the court and that an identical finding in the instant case is warranted.
  • Ben Chambers & Associates, Inc. v. Dornstadter 524 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Again, the Supreme Court stated: “There is a presumption against a change in domicile and one who acquires a new domicile has the burden of proving the change.” We recognize and concur with the established jurisprudence of this state that military personnel retain their pre-military domicile until they clearly act
  • Little v. Little 513 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    cited by both parties, held that since a Louisiana court had personal jurisdiction over a husband in the dissolution of his marriage, that jurisdiction continued for the related proceeding to distribute the husband's military retirement pay.
  • Trotter v. Trotter 503 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    : “Domicile and residence are two separate concepts.
  • Robertson v. Robertson 503 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    In support of the plaintiff’s contention that the Orleans Parish Civil District Court has jurisdiction over the present matter
  • Howard v. Howard 499 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Art. 46; Walcup v. Honish, 210 La.
  • White v. Deal 496 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Jurisdiction Our Supreme Court has considered, very recently, the question of jurisdiction of our *1177 courts to partition the military retirement pay of a
  • Nolan v. Sandlin 488 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    *1261 We are of the opinion that our Supreme Court’s is dispositive of the issue.
  • Allen v. Allen 484 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Savoie v. Savoie 482 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Savoie v. Patton 476 So. 2d 339 La. 1985
  • Stevens v. Stevens 476 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Mrs. Stevens, on the other hand, as dispositive of the jurisdiction issue.