Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. Huber v. King, 22 So. 887.

19 citing documents.

Collins v. Collins 458 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Gondrella v. Gondrella 347 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Viser v. Viser 138 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Fazzio v. Krieger 76 So. 2d 713 La. 1954
1503 , , reached the same view in regard to the nature of alimony.
Hillard v. Hillard 73 So. 2d 442 La. 1954
Eals v. Swan 59 So. 2d 409 La. 1952
Coney v. Coney 41 So. 2d 497 La. 1949
1503 , , and it does not, therefore, depend upon the merits of the suit.
Cotton v. Wright 190 So. 665 La. 1939
1503 , , which, in sum, is that a decree ordering the husband to pay alimony is nothing more than a judicial sanction and enforcement of the duty of the husband to support his wife; that the right of a wife to demand and receive support “is something other and different than a right to receive and be paid a technical debt”
Grisamore v. Grisamore 186 So. 98 La. 1939
Hausser v. Hausser 181 So. 657 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1938
1503 , , as follows: “ ‘1.
Cotton v. Wright 180 So. 487 La. 1938
Wright v. Wright 179 So. 866 La. 1938
1503 , , it was held, as expressed in the syllabus by the court, that: "1.
Snow v. Snow 177 So. 793 La. 1937
Brouilette v. Mallet 157 So. 594 La. 1934
Festervand v. Laster 130 So. 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Huber v. King, Judge, , 22 So.
Abrams v. Rosenthal 96 So. 32 La. 1923
Lorson v. Madere 88 So. 701 La. 1921
Huber v. King, Judge, , 22 South.
Nissen v. Farquhar 46 So. 679 La. 1908
Baker v. Jewell 38 So. 532 La. 1905