DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sanders v. Sanders, 62 So. 2d 284.

51 citing documents.

  • Jodi Sylvester v. Jonell Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    the defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment finding that the balance of a joint bank account belonged solely to a deceased joint account holder.
  • Sylvester v. Fontenot 58 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    238 , (1952), the defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment finding that the balance of a joint bank account belonged solely to a deceased joint account holder.
  • Hill's Mortuary, Inc. v. Hill 619 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Brannon v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 507 So. 2d 194 La. 1987
    (1952) and McCormick on Evidence, § 340(b), 2d Ed., 1972 at 796.
  • Davis v. Lamont 481 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    (1952); See also: McCormick on Evidence, Section 340(B) (2d Ed.1972).
  • Succession of Bartie 472 So. 2d 578 La. 1985
    (1952); See also: McCormick on Evidence, Section 340(B) (2d Ed. 1972).
  • Succession of Lyons 452 So. 2d 1161 La. 1984
  • Kehel v. Yahfoufi 433 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Automatic Coin Enterprises, Inc. v. Vend-Tronics, Inc. 433 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Buxton v. McKendrick, supra ; , (1952).
  • In the Matter of Succession of Lee 430 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    La.Civil Code Art. 2239, [6] , (1952); Succession of Block, 137 La.
  • Mitchell v. Bertolla 397 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Hall v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. 368 So. 2d 984 La. 1979
    Buxton v. McKendrick, supra ; , (1952).
  • Reed v. Thomas 355 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    (1952) which requires exceptionally strong proof of fraud, more than a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Louisiana State Bar Association v. Edwins 329 So. 2d 437 La. 1976
    (1952); Annotation, Attorneys' Misconduct—Degree of Proof, 105 A.L.R.
  • Cryer v. Cryer 297 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Fraud is never presumed, and one who alleges it has the burden to establish the fraud by exceptionally strong proof, , (1952); (3rd Cir. La., 1963); (2d Cir. La., 1967).
  • Marcello v. Bussiere 284 So. 2d 892 La. 1973
    (1952); Packwood v. Johnson, La.App., (1972); Walton v. Bufkin, La.App., (1961).
  • Packwood v. Johnson 264 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Parker v. Rhodes 260 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    (1952), the Supreme Court discussing allegations of fraud, defined the burden of proving it as follows: "In the jurisprudence of this court it has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since
  • Fedele v. St. Romain 242 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1952), the Supreme Court said: “In the jurisprudence of this court it has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally
  • Pierce v. Kyle 241 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1952), wherein the Supreme Court declared that to establish fraud the proof must be exceptionally strong and clear.
  • Friendly Finance Service Mid-City, Inc. v. Windham 240 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    -287 (1952): “In the jurisprudence of this court it has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally strong proof mu
  • Alexander v. Alexander 233 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    287 (1952): “In the jurisprudence of this court it has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally strong proof m
  • Motors Insurance Co. v. Isadore 227 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Beneficial Finance Co. v. Cote 216 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    (Citations omitted) , , this Court stated: ‘In the jurisprudence of this court it has said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally strong pro
  • Armstrong v. Copeland 194 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
    aud is exceptionally serious and the jurisprudence of our State has uniformly established the principles that the burden rests upon the party alleging fraud to establish such allegation by exceptionally strong proof more onerous than the mere preponderance of the evidence; that the possibility of fraud or the suspicious character of surrounding circumstances is not sufficient; , (and cases cited).
  • Polusky v. Allstate Petroleum, Inc. 180 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    the Supreme Court stated: "In the jurisprudence of this court it has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally stro
  • Williams v. Morgan 180 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    and were quoted in Garcia v. Dulcich, 237 La.
  • Dunham v. Dunham 174 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    and cases therein cited.
  • Cannon v. Hunt 165 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Their probative worth would be unstable, and they would not provide that degree of security so necessary in business transactions.” , , wherein the Court stated that evidence showing probably fraud or circumstances partaking of a suspicious character were not sufficient to prove fraud ; fraud must be established by proof stronger than the mere preponderance of the evidence.
  • Bobbitt v. Fowler 160 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    this Court stated: ‘In the jurisprudence of this court it has said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally strong pro
  • Wilson v. Moore 146 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Hooper v. Ruiz 144 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    and cases cited therein.
  • Willis v. Gordon 143 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Wood v. Morgan Bros. 135 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Walton v. Bufkin 135 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Home Finance Service of Lafayette Parish, Inc. v. Black 131 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    American Guaranty Co. v. Sunset Realty and Planting Co., 208 La.
  • Gross v. Brooks 130 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    * * * ” , , the Supreme Court stated: “In the jurisprudence of this court it has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally
  • Newell v. Rountree Olds-Cadillac Co. 129 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    In this connection, it was stated, , -287 .
  • Johnston v. Bearden 127 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    and cases cited therein.
  • Peltier v. Begovich 118 So. 2d 395 La. 1960
  • Garcia v. Dulcich 111 So. 2d 309 La. 1959
    it was stated: *365 “In the jurisprudence of this court it ■has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally stro
  • Todt v. Todt 110 So. 2d 566 La. 1959
  • Glover v. Henry 107 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    and Buxton v. McKendrick, 223 La.
  • West v. Kerksieck 104 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Buxton v. McKendrick, 223 La.
  • Orr v. Walker 104 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    781 ); , ; Buxton v. McKendrick, supra.
  • Howard v. Howard 96 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
    and cases cited therein.
  • Castille v. Champ Auto Sales, Inc. 92 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    said: “In the jurisprudence of this court it has been said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal and convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish fraud exceptionally strong proof must be ad
  • La Croix v. Recknagel 89 So. 2d 363 La. 1956
    Buxton v. McKendrick, 223 La.
  • McClatchey v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Company 85 So. 2d 6 La. 1955
    this Court stated: “In the jurisprudence of this court it has said that the charge of fraud is a most serious one; that one who alleges fraud has the burden of establishing it by legal convincing evidence since fraud is never presumed, and that to establish the fraud exceptionally strong pro
  • Succession of Nelson 70 So. 2d 665 La. 1953