Broderick v. Broderick

10 Citing cases

  1. Jenkins v. Jenkins

    882 So. 2d 705 (La. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    Proof of intoxication on two or three occasions does not establish habitual intemperance. Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5 (La. 1938); Williams v. Williams, 240 So.2d 795 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1970), writ refused, 257 La. 279, 242 So.2d 248 (La. 1971). In Broderick, Chief Justice O'Niell stated that

  2. Williams v. Williams

    240 So. 2d 795 (La. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    The trial judge in granting the separation determined that plaintiff's version of the acts of cruelty and excesses on the part of defendant were true. The trial judge is in a better position to evaluate and weigh testimony of witnesses who appear before him, and accordingly, his findings will not be disturbed unless found to be manifestly erroneous. In the case of Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5 (1938), Chief Justice O'Niell stated: "* * * Besides, according to Article 138 of the Civil Code, habitual intemperance — like ill-treatment of one of the spouses toward the other — is not a just cause for a separation from bed and board unless 'such habitual intemperance, or such ill treatment, is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable'.

  3. Melheim v. Melheim

    36 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. 1949)   Cited 1 times

    "It is necessary for the complainant to establish the existence of habitual resort to intoxicants. An occasional, nonhabitual consumption of alcohol, even to excess, does not make the consumer an habitual drunkard within the divorce laws. Bizer v. Bizer, 110 Iowa, 248, 81 N.W. 465; Moor v. Moor, 211 Ala. 56, 99 So. 316; Acker v. Acker, 22 App. D.C. 353; Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5, 120 A.L.R. 1173. The condition contemplated by the statute is the fixed habit of frequently drinking intoxicating liquors to excess. Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 195, 8 P. 110; Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 324; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 134 So. 201. The indulgence must be so extensive that an enfeebled will, broken down through frequent acquiescence, either prevents or does not desire any active resistance to alcoholic opportunity.

  4. Hereid v. Hereid

    297 N.W. 97 (Minn. 1941)   Cited 4 times
    Defining habitual alcoholic

    It is necessary for the complainant to establish the existence of habitual resort to intoxicants. An occasional, nonhabitual consumption of alcohol, even to excess, does not make the consumer an habitual drunkard within the divorce laws. Bizer v. Bizer, 110 Iowa, 248, 81 N.W. 465; Moor v. Moor, 211 Ala. 56, 99 So. 316; Acker v. Acker, 22 App. D.C. 353; Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5, 120 A.L.R. 1173. The condition contemplated by the statute is the fixed habit of frequently drinking intoxicating liquors to excess. Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 195, 8 P. 110; Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 324; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 134 So. 201. The indulgence must be so extensive that an enfeebled will, broken down through frequent acquiescence, either prevents or does not desire any active resistance to alcoholic opportunity.

  5. Piper v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co.

    542 So. 2d 7 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    Further, a party who neither appeals nor answers the appeal can not have the judgment modified to his advantage. Davidson v. Baker Fuel Oil Burner Co., 134 So. 108 (La.App.Orl. 1931); Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5 (1939). It is clear that CLECO is now attempting to fix the same third-party demand for trial on the merits which was previously dismissed by final judgment of the trial court.

  6. Rittiner v. Sinclair

    374 So. 2d 680 (La. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 30 times
    Recognizing wife's freedom from fault and consequent entitlement to alimony

    This wife and husband habitually drank, but they were not habitually intemperate. Proof of intoxication on two or three occasions does not establish habitual intemperance; Broderick v. Broderick, 1939, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5, 120 A.L.R. 1173. Moreover, the drinking of this husband and wife did not constitute even mutual fault because each party consented to, participated in and encouraged the other's drinking noon and night.

  7. Kleinpeter v. McCulloh

    312 So. 2d 146 (La. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    Furthermore, the evidence reveals that plaintiff's husband absented himself frequently from the family home at night to play gin rummy with a friend and on these occasions admitted to having alcoholic drinks. His abhorrence of his wife's use of alcohol may be judged in light of his own actions. Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5 (1939). The Broderick case stands for the proposition that whether the habitual intemperance with which one party charges the other is sufficient to render their further living together insupportable depends on the living conditions and habits of the parties during the marriage and what may be insupportable to a person of quiet habits, who totally abstains from liquor, may not be insupportable to one who regularly drinks with his spouse at night clubs or on other occasions. Here we find no evidence of the husband's remonstration of his wife for her drinking, other than the occasion when he left the matrimonial domicile upon hearing of his wife's arrest for driving while intoxicated.

  8. Sullivan v. Sullivan

    215 So. 2d 198 (La. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 1 times

    LSA-C.C. Article 138, Par. 3, states that one of the grounds for separation from bed and board is "habitual intemperance * * * excesses * * * or such ill treatment * * * as to render their living together insupportable;". The defendant cites Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5, 120 A.L.R. 1173 (1939), for its holding that whether the habitual intemperance, ill-treatment, etc. is "insupportable", depends on the living conditions and habits of the parties during the marriage. What is "insupportable" to a person of quiet habits, who totally abstains from liquor, may not be "insupportable" to a person who regularly drinks with his spouse at nightclubs or on other social occasions.

  9. Barnes v. Barnes

    207 So. 2d 895 (La. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 7 times

    Appellant simply contends that the evidence tendered by plaintiff is not of sufficient gravity to support a judgment of separation on the ground of cruelty, excesses or outrages on the part of one spouse toward another. In support of his position defendant cites and relies upon Short v. Morrison, 159 La. 193, 105 So. 286; Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5; Primeaux v. Comeaux, 139 La. 549, 71 So. 845. While we are in complete accord with the authorities cited by appellant, none are factually apposite to the case at bar.

  10. Magliolo v. Magliolo

    135 So. 2d 616 (La. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 4 times

    Mr. Magliolo is an automobile mechanic who earns a weekly commission varying from $100 to $150 per week. He frankly admits the incompatibility which has existed in their home for many years, but testifies that his wife is at least 50% to blame. Appellant cites the jurisprudence holding that a husband or wife is not entitled to a separation from bed and board because of mistreatment if his or her conduct was such as to exasperate the other spouse and provoke the offending act. Abele v. Barker, 200 La. 125, 7 So.2d 684, Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492, 186 So. 5, 120 A.L.R. 1173, and Armentor v. Gondron, 184 La. 922, 168 So. 102, 104. The facts of the case of Abele v. Barker, supra, are similar to those in the instant case.