discretion or manifest error in Louisiana

12 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2000 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Trice v. Trice green lactapp · 1983 2 sentences 1985Trice v. Trice, 428 So.2d 1265 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1983). 1984Trice, supra. The amount of child support is calculated to the child’s needs as well as the circumstances of those who are obligated to pay it.	3	1984–1985
Gautreau v. Gautreau green lactapp · 1997 2 sentences 2000Gautreau v. Gautreau, 96-1548, p. 9 (La.App. 3rd Cir.6/18/97), 697 So.2d 1339, 1347 , writ denied, 97-1939 (La.11/7/97), 703 So.2d 1272 . 2000Gautreau v. Gautreau, 96-1548 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/97) , 697 So.2d 1339 ; Timmons v. Timmons, 605 So.2d 1162 (La.App. 2 Cir.1992); State ex rel.	2	2000–2000
Hyams v. Hyams neutral lactapp · 1978 2 sentences 1997Hyams v. Hyams, 365 So.2d 527 (La.App. 3 Cir.1978). 1983Hyams v. Hyams, 365 So.2d 527 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1978).	2	1983–1997
Vestal v. Vestal neutral lactapp · 1968 2 sentences 1978Vestal v. Vestal, 216 So.2d 386 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1968). 1969Vestal v. Vestal, 216 So.2d 386 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1968); McMath v. Masters, 198 So. 2d 734 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967).	2	1969–1978
McMath v. Masters green lactapp · 1967 2 sentences 1977The court further stated in Vestal v. Vestal “the trial court is vested with much discretion in fixing the amount of alimony and his award will not be disturbed on review unless there has been a clear abuse of this discretion or manifest error in his factual appreciations.” Street v. Street, 205 So.2d 839 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1967); McMath v. Masters, 198 So.2d 734 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967). 1969Vestal v. Vestal, 216 So.2d 386 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1968); McMath v. Masters, 198 So. 2d 734 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967).	2	1969–1977
Timmons v. Timmons green lactapp · 1992 1 sentence 2000Gautreau v. Gautreau, 96-1548 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/97) , 697 So.2d 1339 ; Timmons v. Timmons, 605 So.2d 1162 (La.App. 2 Cir.1992); State ex rel.	1	2000–2000
Gautreau v. Gautreau green la · 1997 1 sentence 2000Gautreau v. Gautreau, 96-1548, p. 9 (La.App. 3rd Cir.6/18/97), 697 So.2d 1339, 1347 , writ denied, 97-1939 (La.11/7/97), 703 So.2d 1272 .	1	2000–2000
Mabry v. Mabry neutral lactapp · 1988 1 sentence 1999Hogan v. Hogan 549 So.2d 267 (La.1989); Mabry v. Mabry, 522 So.2d 699 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).	1	1999–1999
Hogan v. Hogan green la · 1989 1 sentence 1999Hogan v. Hogan 549 So.2d 267 (La.1989); Mabry v. Mabry, 522 So.2d 699 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).	1	1999–1999
Dickinson v. Dickinson neutral lactapp · 1984 1 sentence 1985Dickinson v. Dickinson, supra; LaPorte v. Howell, 452 So.2d 420 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984).	1	1985–1985
Laporte v. Howell green lactapp · 1984 1 sentence 1985Dickinson v. Dickinson, supra; LaPorte v. Howell, 452 So.2d 420 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984).	1	1985–1985
Campbell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. neutral lactapp · 1967 1 sentence 1977The court further stated in Vestal v. Vestal “the trial court is vested with much discretion in fixing the amount of alimony and his award will not be disturbed on review unless there has been a clear abuse of this discretion or manifest error in his factual appreciations.” Street v. Street, 205 So.2d 839 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1967); McMath v. Masters, 198 So.2d 734 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967).	1	1977–1977

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check