# Newman v. Newman

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · March 27, 1997 · 96 La.App. 1 Cir. 1062

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7705372

## Case

- **Full name:** Katie Herrington NEWMAN v. Emerson Calvitt NEWMAN
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 27, 1997
- **Citations:** 96 La.App. 1 Cir. 1062; 691 So. 2d 743; 1997 La. App. LEXIS 860; 1997 WL 155012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gonzales
- **Judges:** Gonzales, Kuhn, Likuhn, Watkins
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7705372

## Opinion text

GONZALES, Judge,
concurring.
I respectfully concur. In the writ action on this case, this court ruled: “Since the St. Helena suit was the first one filed, all matters incidental to divorce must be raised in that suit.” Complaining that this ruling was in error, Mrs. Newman sought writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which ordered the matter remanded to us for briefing, argument and opinion. If the Louisiana Supreme Court had been happy -with our ruling, it seems that it would have let it stand.
Apparently, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs because it was dissatisfied with the result of the ruling. Since I cannot say that the Louisiana Supreme Court was wrong, I can only say that I interpret their remand as a requirement that we reverse our previous position. If we did not take the position that we are taking in this opinion, we would be forced to reinstate our original ruling on the writ action. There can only be two ways to go in this case. Therefore, I concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7705372. Public record. Not legal advice.