Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ballard, 321 So. 2d 318.

32 citing documents.

Aupied v. Aupied 38 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Rene Windham Harper v. Randolph Wallace Harper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Harper v. Harper 977 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Bickham v. Bickham 849 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Rosenbloom v. Bauchat 654 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Norvell v. Norvell 629 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Williams v. Williams 541 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
706 , (1962) (overruled as to a *930 separate issue, )
Roberts v. Roberts 542 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Lanclos v. Castille 482 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Hogan v. Hogan 465 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Hendrix v. Hendrix 457 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Morgan v. Morgan 452 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Turning to defendant's answering appeal, a Supreme Court case by which we are bound, holds that interest is due on alimony from the time when each support payment becomes due.
Edwards v. Edwards 446 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1975) amended on other grounds (La.
Manuel v. Manuel 443 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Chaudoir v. Chaudoir 430 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Overruled Williams v. Williams 431 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Viser v. Viser, supra, to the extent Viser held interest could not be awarded on delinquent alimony payments where the original alimony decree did not include interest.
Morgan v. Morgan 428 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
but only insofar as it held legal interest was not due on the alimony.
Melancon v. Neary 428 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Marshall v. Marshall, supra; Thompson v. Courville, supra.
Oliver v. Oliver 417 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Mathews v. Mathews 415 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
McGovern v. Tatman 410 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
as relied upon by the husband in Halcomb (and which cases are also relied upon by the defendant in the present case), the court in Halcomb also said at 1016-1017: “The husband relies principally upon this Court’s
Marshall v. Marshall 390 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Morasco v. Metcalf 381 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
In re Adoption of Jarreau 373 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
1st Cir. 1975), amended on other grounds
Thompson v. Courville 372 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Suire v. Miller 363 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
the court held that after a child reached the age of majority, the mother had no right of action on behalf of the child to enforce a child support judgment rendered during the child's minority, and that only the child could bring the action.
Dolhonde v. Dolhonde 357 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Despite its refusal of writs in Simon , above, the Supreme Court subsequently took a which involved an action by the mother of an emancipated minor to reduce an unpaid child support claim to judgment.
Halcomb v. Halcomb 352 So. 2d 1013 La. 1977
Lamothe v. Lamothe 350 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
The child herself then intervened, citing Miller v. Miller, La.1975, , and was awarded judgment for the arrearages (up until the child’s majority), from which the father (through his curator) appeals.
Contario v. Contario 350 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Weeks v. Weeks 349 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Halcomb v. Halcomb 343 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Defendant contends that the principle of law applied in Eaglin, Wallace and Pisciotto, supra