mover rule in Louisiana

2020Woods, 102 So.3d at 979 .

2020Watson, 16-0159, p. 4, 203 So.3d at 321 .

2017SS v. State, Dept. of Social Services, 02-0831 (La. 12/4/02), 831 So.2d 926, 931 .

2010Id., p. 5, 806 So.2d at 167 .

2010“A proceeding for contempt for refusing to obey the court’s orders is not designed for the benefit of the litigant, though infliction of a punishment may inure to the benefit of the mover in the rule.” Howard v. Oden, 44,191, p. 12 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09), 5 So.3d 989, 997 .

2010Rather, “[t]he object of a contempt proceeding” is the vindication of the “dignity of the court.” Id.

2009Guidry v. One Source Facility Serv., 04-2007, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/27/05), 901 So.2d 626, 628 .

2009Guidry v. One Source Facility Serv., 04-2007, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/27/05), 901 So.2d 626, 628 .

1990In finding that the mover in rule, in a rule to make past-due child support executory, bears the burden of proof, the court distinguished Vaughan v. Vaughan, 415 So.2d 483 (La.App. 1 Cir.1982), and stated the following, at 793: "Although the opinion lends support to her argument, we nevertheless believe that Vaughan v. Vaughan, supra , was concerned with the lack of evidence supporting either the husband's testimony or the Trial Judge's finding on the issue of credibility, but not with the question of who has the burden of proof.

1990In finding that the mover in rule, in a rule to make past-due child support executory, bears the burden of proof, the court distinguished Vaughan v. Vaughan, 415 So.2d 483 (La.App. 1 Cir.1982), and stated the following, at 793: "Although the opinion lends support to her argument, we nevertheless believe that Vaughan v. Vaughan, supra , was concerned with the lack of evidence supporting either the husband's testimony or the Trial Judge's finding on the issue of credibility, but not with the question of who has the burden of proof.

1990This same issue was presented to the court in Singleton v. Singleton, 423 So.2d 791 (La.App. 4 Cir.1982), writ denied, 427 So.2d 1210 (La.1983).

1990This same issue was presented to the court in Singleton v. Singleton, 423 So.2d 791 (La.App. 4 Cir.1982), writ denied, 427 So.2d 1210 (La.1983).

1983The problem in this case is similar to the problem presented in the case of Bearden v. Bearden, 393 So.2d 859 (La.App. 2d Cir.1981).

1935While respondent in her return to this court questioned, the right of relator to the issuance of the writs, in her brief she states: “ * * * That the court might just as well pass on the question of defendant’s right to alimony now as later.” Of course, the writs were issued under our supervisory jurisdiction and Peeples v. Land, 181 La. 925 , 160 So. ,631, in this connection is pertinent.