DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Snow v. Snow, 177 So. 793.

39 citing documents.

  • Marilyn Williams Hedlesky v. Steven Hedlesky La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • Hedlesky v. Hedlesky 166 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Hogan v. Hogan 549 So. 2d 267 La. 1989
  • Guidry v. Guidry 535 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Johnson 412 So. 2d 602 La. 1982
    In support of this argument, , 177 So.
  • Goldstein v. Goldstein 409 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • McGovern v. Tatman 410 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    862 , (1954), the question was answered as follows: ‘The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes prescribed by law, Louisiana Code of Practice, Article 548; , 177 So.
  • Dauzat v. Dauzat 391 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    at page 670, ; Gehrkin v. Gehrkin, supra; Wainwright v. Wainwright, supra."
  • Dubroc v. Dubroc 388 So. 2d 377 La. 1980
  • Vernon v. Leger 363 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    862 , (1954), stated: “ ‘The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes prescribed by law, Louisiana Code of Practice, Article 548; , 177 So.
  • Halcomb v. Halcomb 352 So. 2d 1013 La. 1977
    862 , (1954), the question was answered as follows: "The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes prescribed by law, Louisiana Code of Practice, Article 548; , 177 So.
  • Miller v. Miller 321 So. 2d 318 La. 1975
  • Whitt v. Vauthier 316 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Johnson v. Johnson 293 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    It is defendant's position that because plaintiff allegedly disobeyed the court decree concerning defendant's visitation privileges, *215 she has forfeited the right to past due child support payments, , 177 So.
  • Simon v. Calvert 289 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Anthony v. Anthony 288 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Duplechan v. Duplechan 270 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
  • Caldwell v. Gilbert 253 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
  • Coleman v. Coleman 209 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
    (1954), wherein we find this appropriate observation: "The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes prescribed by law, Louisiana Code of Practice, Article 548; , 177 So.
  • Granger v. Granger 193 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
  • Elchinger v. Elchinger 181 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
  • Dunham v. Dunham 162 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Snow v. Snow [ ] 177 So.
  • Hebert v. Hebert 159 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Dupuis v. Patin 155 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    862 , in which the court held as follows: "The jurisprudence is well settled that a judgment for alimony, as to the amount that has become past due, is the property of him in whose favor it has been given, and is protected against alteration or annulment except by the method and for the causes prescribed by law, Louisiana Code of Practice, Article 548; , 177 So.
  • Viser v. Viser 146 So. 2d 409 La. 1962
  • Arabie v. Arabie 89 So. 2d 890 La. 1956
  • Pisciotto v. Crucia 71 So. 2d 226 La. 1954
    Louisiana Code of Practice, Article 548; , 177 So.
  • Sampognaro v. Sampognaro 63 So. 2d 11 La. 1953
  • Saunier v. Saunier 47 So. 2d 19 La. 1950
  • Wainwright v. Wainwright 46 So. 2d 902 La. 1950
  • Gehrkin v. Gehrkin 45 So. 2d 89 La. 1950
  • Gehrkin v. Gehrkin 45 So. 2d 89 La. 1950
  • Melton v. Melton 36 So. 2d 395 La. 1948
  • Williams v. Williams 31 So. 2d 170 La. 1947
  • Erdal v. Erdal 26 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1946
  • Slagle v. Slagle 17 So. 2d 923 La. 1944
    Article 160 of the Revised Civil Code; , 177 So.
  • Cotton v. Wright 190 So. 665 La. 1939
    (Italics are the writer’s.) , 177 So.
  • Parker v. Parker 186 So. 27 La. 1938
  • Hausser v. Hausser 181 So. 657 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1938
    Judgments in such cases, recognizing the right and ordering its enforcement, are not necessarily judgments for debts/ “We fail to see any logical reason why decrees for alimony should not fall under and properly be classed as-judgments, and, if they be judgments, recording of the same creates judicial mortgages in favor of those owning them.” , 177 So.