Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Krampe v. Krampe, 630 So. 2d 781.
- Samuel Henderson Shuffler v. Sarah Carlton Shuffler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
-
David E. Allie v. Sonja Ellis Allie
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2763 (La.1/7/94)
- Allie v. Allie 80 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-
John Haas Weinstein v. Linda Allen Weinstein
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2763 (La.1/7/94)
-
Weinstein v. Weinstein
62 So. 3d 878
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
App. 3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2763 (La.1/7/94); .
-
Whitehead v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
758 So. 2d 211
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2763 (La.1/7/94); .
-
Cormier v. THE Ins. Co.
716 So. 2d 387
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
3 Cir. 1993), writ denied
-
Falterman v. Falterman
702 So. 2d 781
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2763 (La.1/7/94); .
-
Louviere v. Huey P. Long Medical Center
697 So. 2d 1331
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
3 *1338 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2763 (La.1/7/94); .
-
Hector v. Raymond
692 So. 2d 1284
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
App. 3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2763 (La.1/7/94); ].
-
State v. Christmann
692 So. 2d 1155
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
1/28/94), , writ denied as improvidently granted, 93-2521 (La.4/14/94), ; (La.App.
-
State v. Addison
684 So. 2d 477
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
1/28/94), , and writ denied as improvidently granted, 93-2521 (La.4/14/94), ; (La.App.
-
Guinn v. Rapides Parish Police Jury
649 So. 2d 1148
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
3rd Cir.1993), writ denied, (1994).
-
Hi-Tech Timber v. Valley Elec. Member.
649 So. 2d 1203
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
3d Cir.1993), writ denied, (1994).
-
Richard v. Dupuis
649 So. 2d 718
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
3 Cir.1993), writ denied
-
Strawder v. Zapata Haynie Corp.
649 So. 2d 554
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
3 Cir.1993), writ denied
-
Preis v. Preis
631 So. 2d 1349
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
3rd Cir.1993), writ denied, we stated: "Our research has turned up only one case in which an appellate court has held that a trial court was required to issue oral or written reasons for its choice of an award of child support when the parents' income exceeded the highest amount in R.S.