Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Alford v. Alford, 653 So. 2d 133.
- Amos Joseph Crader, Jr. v. Alison Faye Crader La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
- Sharon Guillory Christie v. Jeffrey Chad Christie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- Howard C. Schoeffler v. Nancy N. Schoeffler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
- Age v. Age 262 So. 3d 290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- Jan E. Segura v. Karl Ray Comeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
-
Kevin J. St. Marie v. Lisa M. Roy
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 4/5/95) stated: It is well settled that, in valuing assets, the trial court is not required to accept, at face value, the valuation placed on assets by either 9 spouse.
-
St. Marie v. Roy
29 So. 3d 708
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 4/5/95) , stated: It is well settled that, in valuing assets, the trial court is not required to accept, at face value, the valuation placed on assets by either Espouse.
- Sheila Gail Comeaux v. Douglas Julien Comeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
- Comeaux v. Comeaux 7 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
- McDonald v. McDonald 909 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
-
Shirley Gauthier v. Newty Paul Gauthier
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 4/5/95), Chance v. Chance, 29,591, p. 1 (La.App.
-
Gauthier v. Gauthier
886 So. 2d 681
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 4/5/95) , ; Chance v. Chance, 29,591, p. 1 (La.App.
-
Diane M. Sheridon, Born Richard v. Jonathan Sheridon
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 4/5/95), (La.App.
-
Sheridon v. Sheridon
867 So. 2d 38
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 4/5/95) , ; (La.App.
- Ellington v. Ellington 842 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
-
Norman v. Norman
775 So. 2d 18
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
App. 3 Cir. 4/5/95), at 7, .
-
McCarroll v. McCarroll
767 So. 2d 715
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
3 Cir. 4/5/95), (proof of total time of employment is insufficient for calculation of the community portion).
- Sherrod v. Sherrod 709 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
-
Bridges v. Bridges
692 So. 2d 1186
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
3 Cir. 4/5/95) ; , 136: It is well settled that, in valuing assets, the trial court is not required to accept, at face value, the valuation placed on assets by either spouse.