Legal Opinion

Rusk v. Rusk

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 6, 2012No. 12-176PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMY, Judge.

| tThe plaintiff sought a divorce, and the defendant brought a reconventional demand, contending that she was entitled to final periodic support. After a hearing, the trial court found in favor of the defendant and awarded final periodic support. The plaintiff now appeals that judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

According to the record, the plaintiff, Eddie Rusk, married the defendant, Dolores Rusk,1 on April 7, 2001. However, the parties separated on September 3, 2006, and Mr. Rusk filed for divorce under La.Civ.Code art. 102 shortly…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Rosell v. EscoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1989
  2. Grasser Contracting Co. v. City of New OrleansLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. Wooley v. LucksingerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2011
  4. Southern Development Co. v. GrecoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Pearce v. PearceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1977

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Schexnayder v. BridgesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. Miller v. MillerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Neff v. NeffLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Voiselle v. VoiselleLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API