DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118.

92 citing documents.

  • Schlosser v. Behan 722 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    This is an appeal by Verna Behan, former wife of appellee, Charles E. Schlosser Jr., from a judgment of the 24th Judicial District Court which (1) and (2) ruled that Ms. Behan was not entitled to funds in Schlosser's Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP).
  • Head v. Head 714 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Bordes v. Bordes 707 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated: This court decided in T.L.
  • Blanchard v. Blanchard 697 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    James formula for defined contribution plans became the exclusive methods for apportioning and distributing the community interest in a pension plan and remained so until 1991
  • Johnson v. Wetherspoon 694 So. 2d 203 La. 1997
  • Chance v. Chance 694 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Overton v. Overton 694 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    In the first assignment of error
  • Tolar v. Tolar 671 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • PERS v. Caddo Parish Com'n 676 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Barrow v. Barrow 669 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    9:2801(4)(c); Kambur v. Kambur, 94-775 (La.App.
  • Withers v. Withers 661 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Withers contends that the 1992 QDRO is ambiguous with respect to the classification of his post-divorce contributions to the retirement plan and that his ex-wife should not be allowed to share in any increase in his retirement benefits attributable to the pay raises he received after the divorce
  • Terrebonne v. Theriot 657 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    5th Cir.1990), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds
  • Alford v. Alford 653 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated: This court decided in T.L.
  • Kambur v. Kambur 652 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    9:2801(4)(c); -23 (La.1991); (La.App.
  • DeMontluzin v. Martinez 652 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    This interpretation has persisted, as indicated by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s that under the “Sims formula,” “the community portion of the pension right is adeemed to be the same fraction that results when the length of the employee spouse’s creditable employment during the community is divided by the length of his total creditable employment.” Id., 586 at 125.
  • Bodenheimer v. Freitag 651 So. 2d 251 La. 1995
  • Preis v. Preis 649 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Stewart v. Stewart 644 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the court stated that Sims should not be interpreted as meaning that a pension right could not be valued for purposes of voluntary or judicial partition prior to maturity.
  • Futch v. Futch 643 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Goodwyne v. Goodwyne 639 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    James and Co., support a conclusion that because the amount that the defendant was entitled to receive under the CBA was computed using total years of service, the plaintiff is entitled to a proportionate share of the CBA, in addition to the amounts already received under the t
  • Sherrill v. Sherrill 639 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    5th Cir.1990), writ granted, affirmed in part and reversed in part, (La.App.
  • Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux 640 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    mandates that, in this particular case, a modification of the Sims formula is necessary to avoid inequitably diluting her proportionate share of the retirement plan.
  • Mechana v. Lambert 635 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    and found that Mr. Lambert had not met his burden to show that the promotion and attendant raises and the enhanced benefits were the product of extraordinary personal effort or achievement after divorce.
  • Killgore v. Killgore 635 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    On appeal, we reversed the trial court judgment and remanded this case for a which was decided after the trial court judgment was rendered.
  • Croft v. Croft 634 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    is controlling: 1 “The termination of the community does not have the effect of freezing the value of each spouse’s undivided interest in community assets.
  • McCown v. McCown 634 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Also, the supreme court recites the rationale for allowing the ex-wife to share in the increased value of a pension fund as: "[T]he services rendered by the nonemployee spouse to the community during the early, low paid years of the employee spouse's employment provide the foundation for the post-divorce escalati
  • Madere v. Madere 632 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • Callender v. Callender 625 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • Traylor v. Traylor 623 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    in which the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that pension benefits are subject to mixed ownership.
  • Hare v. Hodgins 618 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Harmon v. Harmon 617 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Courtney v. Courtney 613 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • Borrello v. Borrello 614 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Webber v. Berry 609 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Mr. Webber contends the trial court erred as a
  • Stubbs v. Stubbs 610 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    cipation in the DROP program, “[t]he monthly benefits that were being paid into the fund during the period of participation shall begin being paid to the retiree.” 1 *896 Therefore, we must conclude that a division of DROP funds for purposes of a
  • Wirstrom v. Wirstrom 608 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Hare v. Hodgins 601 So. 2d 665 La. 1992
    In re Hodgins, Norman F.; applying for motion to enforce Order of this Court’s Order dated September 9, 1991, ; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 90-CA-0086; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 360-370.
  • Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal Dist. 602 So. 2d 704 La. 1992
    (partition of community property); Robert C.S.
  • Frazier v. Harper 600 So. 2d 59 La. 1992
  • Moore v. Moore 596 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Unfortunately, rendered on September 9, 1991.
  • Halverson v. Halverson 589 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • Kyson v. Kyson 596 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991