Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Russo v. Russo, 22 So. 2d 671.
-
Laird v. Laird
363 So. 2d 244
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
646 , ; , ; Stolier v. Stolier, supra , , note 2.
-
Stolier v. Stolier
357 So. 2d 1334
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
646 , ; , ; Slagle v. Slagle, 205 La.
-
Holliday v. Holliday
358 So. 2d 618
La. 1978
17 , (1945) this Court was confronted with contracts containing similar waivers of alimony.
- Ward v. Ward 339 So. 2d 839 La. 1976
-
Caldwell v. Gilbert
253 So. 2d 639
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
741 , ; , ; Comstock v. Bourge, 210 La.
- Nelson v. Walker 197 So. 2d 619 La. 1967
-
Burris v. Burris
197 So. 2d 89
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
694 , (1944) , (1945) the Supreme Court recognized that the Courts of Louisiana have not only the authority to revoke the alimony, as provided in LSA-C.C.
-
Bernard v. Broussard
128 So. 2d 787
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
869 , ; , ; Butterworth v. Butterworth, 203 La.
-
Harris v. Harris
127 So. 2d 747
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
869 , ), 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; , .)
-
Brown v. Harris
72 So. 2d 746
La. 1954
741 , ; , ; Comstock v. Bourge, 210 La.
- Pisciotto v. Crucia 71 So. 2d 226 La. 1954
-
Smith v. Smith
47 So. 2d 32
La. 1950
The trial judge in his reasons for judgment stated that although his views were to the contrary, he was bound by the de *657 cisión , , wherein the Court seems to have used the words “income” in Article 148 of the Civil Code and “means” in Article 160, indiscriminately, stating: “It is obvious, therefore, that the wife’s right to pendente lite and permanent alimony is predicated on her not having an income sufficient for her maintenan
- Russo v. Russo 28 So. 2d 455 La. 1946