DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Matheny v. Matheny, 18 So. 2d 324.

30 citing documents.

  • Loyacano v. Loyacano 358 So. 2d 304 La. 1978
    (1944); Player v. Player, 162 La.
  • Delchamps v. Clark 336 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    art. 229, relieves the ex-husband of his obligation; see Matheny v. Matheny, 1944, , .
  • Griffith v. Roy 256 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Here, permanent custody has already been awarded to the father by the judgment of separation conformably with the provisions of Article 157 of the Civil Code.” , (1944) ; Gentry v. Gentry, La.
  • Kellogg v. Faust 254 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1944); Stabler v. Stabler, 226 La.
  • McManus v. McManus 250 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    861 ] ; and Matheny v. Matheny, [ ] , and the cases therein cited.” (18 So.2d at 642 — emphasis added).
  • Johnson v. McAfee 249 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1944); Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
  • Burris v. Burris 197 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    138 , 140 said: “ * * * The test by which the court must be guided in such cases in fixing the amount of the alimony or pension is not what it takes to support the divorced wife in the manner in which she has been accustomed to live, but what will provide her with ‘sufficient means for her maintenance.’ ” See also— , (1944); Rabun v. Rabun, 232 La.
  • Poole v. Poole 189 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Oster v. Rittiner 181 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Fruehan v. Fruehan, La.App., ; Brown v. Harris, 225 La.
  • State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney 178 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    784 , ; , ; Smith v. Smith, La.App., ; .
  • Wilson v. Wilson 157 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Lucas v. Lucas 157 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    646 , ; , ; Fortier v. Gelpi, 195 La.
  • Morris v. Morris 152 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Misko v. Capuder 147 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    138 ; , ; Smith v. Smith, 217 La.
  • Gary v. Gary 143 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    * * *" In the Gentry and Hanks cases, , ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La.
  • Smith v. Smith 141 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Hanks v. Hanks 138 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Gentry v. Gentry 136 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    wherein a wife sought amendment of a prior custody judgment in favor of her former husband.
  • Bernard v. Broussard 128 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Harris v. Harris 127 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    It is true that her father has, since her husband left her, supplied her with the necessities of life; but this circumstance does not excuse the husband from his duty to support his necessitous first wife ( , ), although it may be available as one of the intertwined circumstances used in the complex task of measuring, as against the husband's ability to pay, the wife's basic needs for maintenance for which the husband is responsible (Matheny case, abovecited; see also Russo v. Russo, 208 La.
  • Simon v. Simon 127 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Plaintiff does not contend that the mother’s duty to maintain her daughter under the provisions of LSA-Civil Code Article 229 primes the duty of the husband to maintain his wife under the provisions of LSA-Civil Code Article 160, , , where it held as follows: “Counsel for the defendant argue that it cannot be said that the plaintiff has not sufficient means for her maintenance because under Article 229 of the Revised Civil Code, her mother is under a superior obligation to maintain her needy dau
  • Jones v. Jones 93 So. 2d 917 La. 1957
    * * *' , ; Smith v. Smith, 217 La.
  • Jones v. Jones 93 So. 2d 917 La. 1957
    * * * ’ , ; Smith v. Smith, 217 La.
  • Howell v. Howell 85 So. 2d 885 La. 1956
    Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La.
  • Brown v. Harris 72 So. 2d 746 La. 1954
    * * * ” , ; Smith v. Smith, 217 La.
  • Wilmot v. Wilmot 65 So. 2d 321 La. 1953
    this Court stated: “The test is not the amount of money which it requires to support the divorced wife in the manner in which she was accustomed to live, but what sum will provide her with sufficient means for her maintenance.
  • Reich v. Grieff 38 So. 2d 381 La. 1949
  • Fletcher v. Fletcher 34 So. 2d 43 La. 1948
  • Sanford v. Sanford 24 So. 2d 145 La. 1945
    861 ], ; and Matheny v. Matheny [ ], , and the cases therein cited.
  • White v. Broussard 18 So. 2d 641 La. 1944
    861 , ; , , and the cases therein cited.