Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Navarrette v. Laughlin, 24 So. 2d 672.

28 citing documents.

Eldred v. Fleming 56 So. 3d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 4/12/06), , , (1946)1; Holiday Hospitality Franchising Inc. v. Grant, p. 5 (La.App.
Anaya v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc. 985 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Winston v. Millaud 930 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co. 772 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Co., , (1946); Morehead v. Ford Motor Co., 29,399 (La.App.
Guillory v. Dillard's Dept. Store, Inc. 777 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
[3] , (1946) (where the Louisiana Supreme court first applied the adverse presumption rule against a party who failed to produce evidence within its control).
Dodge & Ringer v. Salazar 556 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Furthermore, “[t]he burden of undermining the verity of the [foreign] decree rests heavily upon the assailants.” Navarrette v. Laughlin, et al, , (1946).
Ramos Group, Inc. v. Villard 425 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Andrews v. Racca 399 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Sandifer v. Sandifer 389 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
and cases cited therein."
Holden v. Holden 374 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Valvoline Oil Company v. Krauss 335 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
and cases cited therein."
Berry v. Berry 307 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Tjaden v. Tjaden 294 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
1577 (1945); , (1946); Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La.
Hampson v. Hampson 271 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
1577 (1945); , (1946); Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La.
Hudman v. Hudman 259 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1972
(1946) and Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La.
Porter v. Hawkins 240 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Didier v. Didier 230 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
The respective positions and the authorities relied upon by each litigant are set forth in the opinion as follows: ( ) " , (1946) and Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La.
Boudreaux v. Welch 192 So. 2d 356 La. 1966
(1946) and Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La.
Boudreaux v. Welch 180 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
The plaintiff contends that the trial court decided this case adverse to her on outmoded *727 jurisprudence; that its opinion and decision was based primarily on the case of Navarette v. Joseph Laughlin, Inc., (1946) , , in which latter case the court relied principally on the case of Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 , 65 S.Ct.
Turpin v. Turpin 175 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
In support of her position, plaintiff relies upon several principles well established in the jurisprudence, , (1946).
Walker v. Walker 157 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
our Supreme Court has held that the only question which the Louisiana court will consider with respect to the validity of the divorce decree of another state is the jurisdictional requirement of domicile.
Douglas v. Douglas 146 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Thomas v. Howard 144 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
the court said on page 674: “[2] The judicial power to grant a divorce is founded on domicile.
Finn v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION 141 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
Applicable to the instant case is a , , wherein it was observed: "It is well settled that anyone at interest has the right to collaterally impeach a decree of divorce rendered in another state by proving that the court had no jurisdiction.
Wayne v. Reynolds 125 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Navarrette v. Laughlin, *227 , and cases cited therein.” The Sheard case, supra, is different from the one before us in two important particulars.
Rouse v. Rouse 55 So. 2d 246 La. 1951
631 ; , ; Rhodes v. Miller, 189 La.
Sheard v. Green 52 So. 2d 714 La. 1951
and cases cited therein.
Spring v. Spring 27 So. 2d 358 La. 1946
it is stated that the judicial power to grant a divorce is founded on domicile and many authorities are cited therein to support the conclusion.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by