DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Le Jeune, 59 So. 2d 446.

16 citing documents.

  • Riley v. Riley 501 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The pertinent jurisprudence is summarized in , (1952).
  • Lewis v. Baxter 428 So. 2d 1307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Jarred v. Jarred 355 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    In , (1952), the Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated the Houghton rule.
  • Daigre v. Cochrane 287 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    1092 , (1948); , (1952); Stevens v. Johnson, 230 La.
  • Paxton v. Bramlette 228 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    (1952) and Abraham v. Abraham, 230 La.
  • Boulet v. Fruge 221 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    37 ; , ; Johnson v. Johnson, 213 La.
  • Succession of Smith 175 So. 2d 269 La. 1965
    429 , ; , ; Montgomery v. Bouanchaud, 179 La.
  • Succession of Ridley 175 So. 2d 269 La. 1965
    429 , ; , ; Montgomery v. Bouanchaud, 179 La.
  • Succession of Marshall 174 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Van Horn v. Vining 133 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    1092 , ; , ; Stevens v. Johnson, 230 La.
  • King v. Dearman 105 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    48 ; Succession of Le Jeune, 1952, , .
  • Taylor v. Dunn 97 So. 2d 415 La. 1957
    1092 , ; , ; Stevens v. Johnson, 230 La.
  • Smith v. Smith 89 So. 2d 55 La. 1956
    37 ; , ; Johnson v. Johnson, 213 La.
  • Jackson v. Firemen's Insurance Company 86 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    However, the property was acquired during the marriage, and the evidence in the record is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that therefore it is community property, Article 2234, LSA-Civil Code, , .
  • Guilbeau v. Guilbeau 71 So. 2d 129 La. 1954
    This presumption, however, may be overcome by satisfactory proof by the wife or her heirs that the purchase price was paid with her separate and paraphernal funds, and that these funds were administered by her separate ánd apart from her husband and were an investment by her.” See, , .
  • Succession of Franek 70 So. 2d 670 La. 1954