DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sheridon v. Sheridon, 867 So. 2d 38.

16 citing documents.

  • M. B. v. T. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3 Cir. 02/04/04), arguing this court held that a wife was not entitled to reimbursement of one-half of the amounts she paid on a note executed to finance purchase of an automobile that she exclusively used following termination of community.
  • Michael L. Glass v. Patricia M. Glass La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Glass v. Glass 7 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Brenda Bordelon v. Gregory D. Bordelon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 2/4/04), (en banc) (emphasis added).
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 942 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 2/4/04), ( en banc ) (emphasis added).
  • Mason v. Mason 927 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • Shaunn Caillier McCorvey v. Derriel Carlton McCorvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 2/4/04), (en banc), where the divorce suit was filed in October 1999 and the last day of trial was in November 2001, this court articulated as follows: Mr. Sheridon asserts that the trial court erred in requiring him to reimburse Ms. Sheridon $4,110.25, representing one half of the amou
  • Lessie Oliver Hatsfelt v. Ronald Vernon Hatsfelt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 2/4/04), when the debt exceeds $500.00, “[t]he issue is not one of credibility, but of sufficiency of the evidence.” Given the record before us, we find merit in Lessie’s assignment of error with regard to the loans at issue and reverse the allocation of one-half of these obligations to her and allocate all to Ronald.
  • Hatsfelt v. Hatsfelt 922 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 2/4/04), , when the debt exceeds $500.00, "[t]he issue is not one of credibility, but of sufficiency of the evidence."
  • McCorvey v. McCorvey 922 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 2/4/04) , ( en banc ), where the divorce suit was filed in October 1999 and the last day of trial was in November 2001, this court articulated as follows: Mr. Sheridon asserts that the trial court erred in requiring him to reimburse Ms. Sheridon $4,110.25, representing one half of the amounts she paid between October 5, 1999, a
  • Donna C. Moore v. Charles L. Moore, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    3 Cir. 2/4/04), ], no reimbursement is ever due for payment of community obligations made with separate funds after termination of the community – only before.” Mr. Moore misconstrues our en banc holding in Sheridon.
  • Charles Albert Tarver v. Mary Chandler Tarver La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Moore v. Moore 917 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    3 Cir. 2/4/04) , ], no reimbursement is ever due for payment of community obligations made with separate funds after termination of the community — only before."
  • Tarver v. Tarver 916 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Debra Parish Philmon v. Jake C. Philmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Philmon v. Philmon 886 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004