DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Russo v. Russo, 18 So. 2d 318.

19 citing documents.

  • McAlpine v. McAlpine 679 So. 2d 85 La. 1996
  • Gamble v. Gamble 391 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Ward v. Ward 339 So. 2d 839 La. 1976
    (1944); Sonnikson v. Whipple, La.App., (1973).
  • Ward v. Ward 332 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    (1944), it was held that the exceptions found in Civil Code Article 2446 do not include an authorization for the settlement of alimony rights.
  • Valvoline Oil Company v. Krauss 335 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Sonnikson v. Whipple 283 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1944), it was held that the exceptions found in Civil Code Article 2446 do not include an authorization for the settlement of alimony rights.
  • Grice v. Grice 281 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Mayrson v. Chaplin 279 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    In this Court she argues that the agreement is not binding on her, , , for the proposition that a husband and wife cannot contract with each other during the existence of the marriage.
  • Fisher v. Fisher 261 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1955) was cited for support.
  • Thevis v. Thevis 254 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    545 , , the Supreme Court of this state, , , held that LSA-C.C.
  • Nelson v. Walker 197 So. 2d 619 La. 1967
    was ample justification for the refusal to accept title to the property herein.
  • Gray v. Gray 189 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Nelson v. Walker 189 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Sylvester v. Sylvester 137 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    See Civil Code Article 1790 , .
  • Wayne v. Reynolds 125 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Sheard v. Green 52 So. 2d 714 La. 1951
  • Reeme v. Motors Securities Co. 51 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    “The general rule of law is that a party who seeks the annulment of a commutative contract must offer to return or tender the return of the consideration received as a condition precedent to the right to institute such a suit.” There are, however, exceptions to this general rule.
  • McLain v. National Mut. Casualty Co. 28 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    Defendant contends that under the provisions of Article 1790, R.C.C., and decisions of our appellate courts in a number of cases, , (which cites many other authorities as well as Act No. 283 of 1928), there could have been no contract of employment of the husband by the wife in a business separately owned and operated by her; and for the further reason that if the wife is engaged in business for herself under the provisions of Artic
  • Russo v. Russo 22 So. 2d 671 La. 1945