DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Aldredge v. Aldredge, 477 So. 2d 73.

21 citing documents.

  • Geralyn Adgia Lambert Hartman v. Wesley Wood Lambert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Troy Edward Derouen v. Leo Nelson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    It is true that under La.Civ.Code art. 1971 that “[p]arties are free to contract for any object that is lawful, possible, and determined or determinable.” However, “[i]n order for such a waiver of benefits established by law to be valid, it must be expressly, knowingly and voluntarily made[.]” The language that Derouen cites need be strained to take on the meaning that Derouen proposes.
  • DEROUEN v. Nelson 32 So. 3d 1079 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Code art. 1971 that “[pjarties are free to contract for any object that is lawful, possible, and determined or determinable.” However, “[i]n order for such a waiver of benefits established by law to be valid, it must be expressly, knowingly and voluntarily made[.]” The language that Derouen cites need be strained to take on the meaning that Derouen proposes.
  • Michael Gregory Thevenot, Sr. v. Christine Dronet Thevenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Thereafter, the supreme court determined that parties who entered into a consent judgment regarding the 3 payment of child support could waive the requirement of proving a change in circumstances for purposes of a later request for modification of those payments.
  • Thevenot v. Thevenot 864 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Thereafter, the supreme court determined that parties who entered into a consent judgment regarding the payment of child support could waive the requirement of proving a change in circumstances for purposes of a later request for modification of those payments.
  • Stogner v. Stogner 739 So. 2d 762 La. 1999
    See Hogan, 549 So.2d at 267 ; (La.
  • McAlpine v. McAlpine 679 So. 2d 85 La. 1996
  • Hogan v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. 649 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Big River Const. v. University Club I Apts., (La.App.
  • Blackburn v. Blackburn 638 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • Zatzkis v. Zatzkis 632 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Crumling v. Crumling 628 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Although not imperative under either the Civil Code or public policy, -75 (La.1985), the general rule is that proof of a change in circumstances is necessary for modification of alimony, regardless of whether the judgment appealed from derives from consent or from an adversarial proceeding.
  • Crumling v. Crumling 628 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Although not imperative under either the Civil Code or public policy, -75 (La.1985), the general rule is that proof of a change in circumstances is necessary for modification of alimony, regardless of whether the judgment appealed from derives from consent or from an adversarial proceeding.
  • Walock v. Walock 628 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Benoit v. Lestremau 603 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    is very *270 nearly on point.
  • Betts v. Betts 549 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    App. 3rd Cir.1987), writ denied
  • Clary v. Clary 550 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    (Lemmon, J., concurring), as well as then Judge Lemmon's concurrence and the dissents of Judges Gulotta and Schott in Willis, supra .
  • Callihan v. Hartman 534 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Osborne v. Osborne 512 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    recognized that an express and unequivocal waiver could be made as an exception to the requirement of proving a change in circumstances.
  • Moncus v. Moncus 510 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Patrick v. Patrick 496 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Lagrone v. Lagrone 499 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986