support doctrine (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

support doctrine in Louisiana

9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2015 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)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (17)

CaseCitedYears
Haynes v. Mangham green
la · 1979
2 sentences

1985The juvenile court indicated its awareness of the Louisiana Supreme Court's holding in Haynes v. Mangum, 375 So.2d 103 (La.1979) that a significant contribution of support in the year prior to the adoption proceeding may satisfy the support requirement of LSA-R.S. 9:422.1.

1985The juvenile court indicated its awareness of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s holding in Haynes v. Mangum, 375 So.2d 103 (La.1979) that a significant contribution of support in the year prior to the adoption proceeding may satisfy the support requirement of LSA-R.S. 9:422.1.

31983–1985
In Re Hartley green
la · 2004
1 sentence

2015See In re: Hartley, 03-2828 (La.4/2/04), 869 So.2d 799 (declining to impose formal discipline and dismissing charges given the “totality of the circumstances”); In re: Cabibi 05-1217 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 490 (ordering formal charges dismissed).

12015–2015
In re Cabibi neutral
la · 2006
1 sentence

2015See In re: Hartley, 03-2828 (La.4/2/04), 869 So.2d 799 (declining to impose formal discipline and dismissing charges given the “totality of the circumstances”); In re: Cabibi 05-1217 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 490 (ordering formal charges dismissed).

12015–2015
State v. Alfred green
la · 1976
1 sentence

2003There is no evidence before the court to support defense counsel's argument that Mr. Guilbeaux is a crucial witness. *203 As stated by the supreme court in Alfred, 337 So.2d 1049 , incarceration and the deprivation of liberty resulting therefrom is always prejudicial.

12003–2003
Patrick v. Patrick green
lactapp · 1970
1 sentence

1987Pardue, supra; Patrick, supra. Conversion of a support rule into a contract action at the conclusion of the case is not a proper method to determine whether a legally enforceable contract was entered into by the parties.

11987–1987
Pardue v. Livingston Parish School Board green
lactapp · 1973
1 sentence

1987Pardue, supra; Patrick, supra. Conversion of a support rule into a contract action at the conclusion of the case is not a proper method to determine whether a legally enforceable contract was entered into by the parties.

11987–1987
Succession of Farley green
la · 1944
2 sentences

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

11962–1962
Houghton v. Hall green
la · 1933
2 sentences

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

11962–1962
Sharp v. Zeller green
la · 1902
2 sentences

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

11962–1962
Succession of Andrus neutral
la · 1913
2 sentences

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

11962–1962
Succession of Watkins green
la · 1924
2 sentences

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

11962–1962
Lewis v. Clay neutral
la · 1952
2 sentences

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

11962–1962
Pearlstine v. Mattes green
la · 1953
2 sentences

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

1962Sharp v. Zeller, 110 La. 61 , 34 So. 129 ; Succession of Andrus, 131 La. 940 , 60 So. 623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: Succession of Farley, 205 La. 972 , 18 So.2d 586 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237 , 148 So. 37 ; Lewis v. Clay, 221 La. 663 , 60 So.2d 78 ; Succession of Watkins, 156 La. 1000 , 101 So. 395 .

11962–1962
Wickwire v. Reinecke green
scotus · 1927
2 sentences

1941Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101 , 48 S.Ct. 43 , 72 L.Ed. 184 ; Jones v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [7 Cir.] 38 F.(2d) 550, 552 .” (Italics ours).

1941Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101 , 48 S.Ct. 43 , 72 L.Ed. 184 ; Jones v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [7 Cir.] 38 F.(2d) 550, 552 .” (Italics ours).

11941–1941
Jones v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue green
ca7 · 1930
1 sentence

1941Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101 , 48 S.Ct. 43 , 72 L.Ed. 184 ; Jones v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [7 Cir.] 38 F.(2d) 550, 552 .” (Italics ours).

11941–1941
State v. Magoon green
vt · 1877
1 sentence

1905Counsel representing the prosecution cite State v. Magoon, 50 Vt. 333 , and State v. Harrison, 66 Vt. 523 , 29 Atl. 807 , 44 Am.

11905–1905
State v. Harrison neutral
vt · 1894
1 sentence

1905Counsel representing the prosecution cite State v. Magoon, 50 Vt. 333 , and State v. Harrison, 66 Vt. 523 , 29 Atl. 807 , 44 Am.

11905–1905

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:422.1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 54 (1928–2026) NY 47 (1876–2026) NJ 37 (1967–2026) VA 20 (1991–2026) CA 16 (1944–2025) TX 13 (1980–2022) IL 12 (1901–2026) OH 11 (1933–2022) IN 10 (1897–2019) LA 9 (1905–2015) KS 9 (1891–2022) NC 9 (1906–2025) NV 8 (1962–2023) GA 8 (1922–2013) IA 8 (1893–2007) MS 8 (1958–2005) MI 7 (1866–2000) FL 7 (1980–2019) WA 7 (1921–2025) ID 6 (1928–2019) TN 5 (1937–2015) OK 5 (1995–2013) MO 5 (1883–2003) AZ 4 (1948–2024) WI 4 (1912–2024) CT 4 (1959–2013) UT 4 (1935–2022) OR 4 (1936–2003) ND 3 (1893–1988) MT 3 (1923–2009) MA 3 (1962–2003) MN 3 (1934–1951) MD 2 (1964–2005) AR 2 (1993–2023) NE 2 (1996–1996) AL 2 (1916–1940) RI 2 (1993–2002) DC 2 (1995–2009)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check