Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Heatwole v. Stansbury, 33 So. 2d 196.

20 citing documents.

Clementine Fairrow v. James E. Marves La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
(1947) (holding that “concubines, although under certain disabilities, in the interest of good morals, are not prevented from asserting claims arising out of business transactions between themselves, independent of the concubinage”); Legarde v. Dabon, 155 La.
Succession of LeBlanc 577 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
448 (1873); , (1947); Delamou v. Roger, 7 La.Ann.
LeDoux v. LeDoux 534 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
(1947), where it was the paramour who lost in his bid to prove an interest in a savings account on deposit in the name of the concubine.
Succession of Batiste 446 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Schwegmann v. Schwegmann 441 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
(1947); (1st Cir.1965); (2nd Cir. 1963); (4th Cir.1945).
Lacour v. Theard 439 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
See Sparrow v. Sparrow, supra, , (1947); Delamour v. Roger, 7 La.Ann.
Broadway v. Broadway 417 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(1947), the Supreme Court, while noting that concubinage did not establish a community of gains or a partnership, stated: "It is to be noted that concubines, although under certain disabilities, in the interest of good morals, are not prevented from asserting claims arising out of business transactions
Gathright v. Smith 368 So. 2d 679 La. 1979
Sparrow v. Sparrow, 231 La.
Gathright v. Smith 352 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Mintz & Mintz, Inc. v. Color 250 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
(1947); Sims v. Matassa, La.App., 200 So.
Keller v. Keller 220 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
911 ; Heatwole v. Stansbury, 1947, , ; Sims v. Matassa, La.App.
Guerin v. Bonaventure 212 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Guerin v. Bonaventure 190 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
911 ; , ; annotation at page 1297 of 31 A.L.R.2d.” , Subsequently,.in Jackson v. Hampton, La.
Foshee v. Simkin 174 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
294 .'" In the case of Heatwole v. Stansbury (1947) , , the plaintiff was seeking to recover one-half of the homestead savings account accumulated during the time he and the defendant lived in concubinage.
Jackson v. Hampton 153 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Chambers v. Crawford 150 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
ounsel that even where the parties are living in open concubinage and acquire property during the existence of that relationship, there are instances in our jurisprudence where each party is allowed to recover one-half of the property acquired during the concubinage and restoration of one-half of the sums expended for the restoration and preservation of the property, , (1947); Manning v. Harrell, La.App., (2d Cir., 1952); Succession of Washington, supra; Jenkins v. Prevost, La.App., 140 So.
Succession of Washington 140 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Jenkins v. Prevost 140 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Jackson v. Hampton, La.App., ; , ; Sims v. Matassa, La.
Jackson v. Hampton 134 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
911 ; Heatwole v. Stansbury, 1947, , ; Sims v. Matassa, La.App.
Manning v. Harrell 59 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
The decision has been referred to approvingly in Heatwole v. Stansbury, 1947, , and Patin v. T. L. James & Company, Inc., La.App., 1949, .