Juneau v. Juneau

17 Citing cases

  1. Tjaden v. Tjaden

    294 So. 2d 846 (La. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    The burden of undermining the decree of the other state rests heavily upon the assailant. Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577 (1945); Navarrette v. Laughlin, 209 La. 417, 24 So.2d 672 (1946); Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864 (1955); Turpin v. Turpin, 175 So.2d 357 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1965)."

  2. MAS v. PERRY

    489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 503 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent changes in the citizenship of the parties

    These are curious results under a rule arising from the theoretical identity of person and interest of the married couple. See Linscott v. Linscott, S. D.Iowa, 1951, 98 F. Supp. 802, 804; Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864, 867 (1954). An American woman is not deemed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage to an alien.

  3. Walker v. Jones

    221 So. 2d 44 (La. 1969)   Cited 13 times
    In Walker v. Jones, 253 La. 908, 221 So.2d 44 (1969), the Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed dismissal of an appeal by the First Circuit for failure to file a brief.

    " See Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, Knights of Pythias v. Natchitoches Lodge No. 89, Knights of Pythias, 215 La. 300, 40 So.2d 472; Hayes v. Petry, 218 La. 730, 50 So.2d 821; Antoon v. Mayor and City Commissioners and Building Inspector of City of Natchitoches, 218 La. 732, 50 So.2d 822; Frey v. Ingram, 219 La. 159, 52 So.2d 531; White v. Sharp, 220 La. 928, 57 So.2d 898; Peace v. Love, 223 La. 772, 66 So.2d 803; Mendes v. Kostmayer, 226 La. 730, 77 So.2d 21; Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864; Benedict, Administrator v. Stulb, 230 La. 995, 89 So.2d 768; and other cases. When we consider the case at bar in light of the circumstances appearing before the Court of Appeal, we think it manifest that the appellate court abused its discretion in holding that the appeal was abandoned.

  4. Holland v. Balantyne

    120 So. 2d 841 (La. 1960)

    HAMLIN, Justice. The appellant, Madeline M. Holland, did not appear at the time set for argument of the appeal in this Court and did not file a brief in support of her appeal. It is well settled that under these circumstances the appeal will be dismissed. Di Martino v. O'Brien, 225 La. 329, 72 So.2d 749; Harvey v. Thomas, 227 La. 25, 78 So.2d 497; Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864. It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

  5. Bush v. Bush

    95 So. 2d 298 (La. 1957)   Cited 20 times

    Stevens v. Allen, 139 La. 658, 71 So. 936, L.R.A. 1916E, 1115; Pane v. Pane, 152 La. 415, 93 So. 246; McGee v. Gasery, 185 La. 839, 171 So. 246; McGee v. Gasery, 185 La. 839, 171 So. 49; Bruno v. Mauro, 205 La. 209, 17 So.2d 253. But an exception to the rule, many times also recognized in our jurisprudence, is that a wife is authorized to acquire a separate domicile for herself where she is abandoned or is compelled by reason of ill treatment to leave her husband. Smith v. Smith, 43 La.Ann. 1140, 10 So. 248; Stevens v. Allen, supra; State v. Fick, 140 La. 1063, 74 So. 554; George v. George, 143 La. 1032, 79 So. 832; Succession of Lasseigne, 143 La. 1095, 79 So. 873; Lepenser v. Griffin, 146 La. 584, 83 So. 839; McGee v. Gasery, supra; Zinko v. Zinko, 204 La. 478, 15 So.2d 859; Bruno v. Mauro, supra; and Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864. With further reference to such general rule and the exception thereto the following observations of this court are pertinent: "The marital obligation imposed by article 120 of the Civil Code, that the wife is bound to live with her husband and to follow him wherever he chooses to reside, must be construed with reference to the obligations of the husband, and with reference to the right of the wife to put an end to the matrimonial relation for any one of the causes specified in article 138 of the Code.

  6. Benedict v. Stulb

    230 La. 995 (La. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    Accordingly, they will be dismissed. Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, Knights of Pythias v. Natchitoches Lodge No. 89, Knights of Pythias, 215 La. 300, 40 So.2d 472; Hayes v. Petry, 218 La. 730, 50 So.2d 821; Antoon v. Mayor and City Commissioners and Building Inspector of City of Natchitoches, 218 La. 732, 50 So.2d 822; Frey v. Ingram, 219 La. 159, 52 So.2d 531; White v. Sharp, 220 La. 928, 57 So.2d 898; Peace v. Love, 223 La. 772, 66 So.2d 803; Mendes v. Kostmayer, 226 La. 730, 77 So.2d 21; Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864. Subsequent to the day on which the appeals were to be heard counsel for the original plaintiff sought permission to file a typewritten brief.

  7. Andrews v. Racca

    399 So. 2d 800 (La. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    In reaching the decision that he did, the trial judge apparently relied on older cases holding that Louisiana courts will not extend full faith and credit to divorce decrees rendered by other states where it is established that the court rendering the decree did not have jurisdiction founded on domicile. See, Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577 (1945); Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864 (1955); Navarrette v. Laughlin, 209 La. 417, 24 So.2d 672 (1946). The rule of those cases has been materially modified by later jurisprudence, however.

  8. Stelly Const., Inc. v. Richard

    401 So. 2d 1211 (La. Ct. App. 1981)

    ' [2] See Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, Knights of Pythias v. Natchitoches Lodge No. 89, Knights of Pythias, 215 La. 300, 40 So.2d 472; Hayes v. Petry, 218 La. 730, 50 So.2d 821; Antoon v. Mayor and City Commissioners and Building Inspector of City of Natchitoches, 218 La. 732, 50 So. 822; Frey v. Ingram, 219 La. 159, 52 So.2d 531; White v. Sharp, 220 La. 928, 57 So.2d 898; Peace v. Love, 223 La. 772, 66 So.2d 803; Mendes v. Kostmayer, 226 La. 730, 77 So.2d 21; Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864; Benedict, Administrator v. Stulb, 230 La. 995, 89 So.2d 768; and other cases."

  9. Watts v. Watts

    305 So. 2d 627 (La. Ct. App. 1975)

    It is well established, however, that a wife may acquire a domicile separate from that of her husband where she is abandoned or is compelled by reason of ill treatment to leave her husband. Bush v. Bush, 232 La. 747, 95 So.2d 298 (1957); Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864 (1955); Bruno v. Mauro, 205 La. 209, 17 So.2d 253 (1944); Zinko v. Zinko, 204 La. 478, 15 So.2d 859 (1943); McGee v. Gasery, 185 La. 839, 171 So. 49 (1936); Lepenser v. Griffin, 146 La. 584, 83 So. 839 (1920); Succession of Lasseigne, 143 La. 1095, 79 So. 873 (1918): George v. George, 143 La. 1032, 79 So. 832 (1918); State v. Fick, 140 La. 1063, 74 So. 554 (1917); Stevens v. Allen, 139 La. 658, 71 So. 936 (1916); Smith v. Smith, 43 La.Ann. 1140, 10 So. 248 (1891); Authement v. Authement, 254 So.2d 630 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1971); Hickman v. Hickman, 218 So.2d 48 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1969); Landry v. Landry, 192 So.2d 237 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1966). * * * * * *

  10. Berry v. Berry

    307 So. 2d 821 (La. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 12 times

    The burden of undermining the decree of the other state rests heavily upon the assailant. Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577 (1945); Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864 (1955); Navarrette v. Laughlin, 209 La. 417, 24 So.2d 672 (1946). Title 34, Section 29, Code of Alabama, as amended in 1971 required the wife to reside in Alabama for six months before she could file suit for divorce.