Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cotton v. Wright, 190 So. 665.

43 citing documents.

Hawkins v. Hawkins 592 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
In the absence of such a suit, however, the judgment cannot be altered or modified, , 190 So.
Whipple v. Whipple 451 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
While Viser does stand for the proposition that alimony pendente lite continues to accrue pending the appeal of a judgment of divorce, , 190 So.
McManus v. McManus 428 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The party in whose favor the alimony and child support judgment is made is entitled to spend the payment as he or she chooses and has the unrestricted right to determine how funds will be disbursed, Seifert v. Seifert, supra; , 190 So.
Morris v. Morris 426 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
More importantly, , 190 So.
Mullen v. Mullen 422 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Castille v. Buck 411 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Goldstein v. Goldstein 409 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
793 (where all of the prior jurisprudence on this question is reviewed); , 190 So.
McGovern v. Tatman 410 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
In the absence of such a suit, however, the judgment cannot be altered or modified, , 190 So.
Sumrall v. Sumrall 393 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Ahlers v. Ahlers 384 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Seifert v. Seifert 374 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Bruner v. Bruner 373 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Williams v. Williams 371 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Halcomb v. Halcomb 352 So. 2d 1013 La. 1977
In the absence of such a suit, however, the judgment cannot be altered or modified, , 190 So.
Mertens v. Mertens 308 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Hill v. Hill 304 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Anthony v. Anthony 288 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
793 (where all of the prior jurisprudence on this question is reviewed); , 190 So.
Cumpton v. Cumpton 283 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Odum v. Odum 273 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Caldwell v. Gilbert 253 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Leach v. Leach 238 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Davis v. Contorno 234 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
McFerrin v. McFerrin 225 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Starkey v. Starkey 209 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Snider v. Bozarth 199 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Van Morkhoven v. Kleiner 180 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Smith v. Smith 179 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
See Thornton v. Floyd, cited above, , 190 So.
Viser v. Viser 146 So. 2d 409 La. 1962
Becker v. Shapiro 139 So. 2d 762 La. 1962
Viser v. Viser 138 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
239 , , the opinion of the court declaring: “ , 190 So.
Allen v. Allen 136 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Duncan v. Roane 127 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Cotton v. Wright, 1939, , 190 So.
Arabie v. Arabie 89 So. 2d 890 La. 1956
793 (where all of the prior jurisprudence on this question is reviewed) ; , 190 So.
Murphy v. Murphy 87 So. 2d 4 La. 1956
Thornton v. Floyd 85 So. 2d 499 La. 1956
Fazzio v. Krieger 76 So. 2d 713 La. 1954
Sampognaro v. Sampognaro 63 So. 2d 11 La. 1953
St. Martin v. Messersmith 48 So. 2d 909 La. 1950
Sampognaro v. Sampognaro 35 So. 2d 742 La. 1948
The same question presented by the motion to dismiss the appeal was considered by this Court in the case of Cot *817 , 190 So.
Williams v. Williams 31 So. 2d 170 La. 1947
793 (where all of the prior jurisprudence on this question is reviewed); , 190 So.
Erdal v. Erdal 26 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1946
793 , which reviews all of the prior jurisprudence, , 190 So.
Cassagne v. Cassagne 22 So. 2d 559 La. 1945
Miller v. Miller 20 So. 2d 419 La. 1944

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by