DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Rougon, 65 So. 2d 104.

20 citing documents.

  • Brandon Broussard v. Richard D. Ebare and Norbert L. Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3 Cir. 1963) (wherein a panel of this court explained that while “wish” or “hope” may be included as “part of a precatory suggestion in a will, it is also true that the same words, depending on the way they are used, may be mandatory or dispositive.”) ( So.2d 104 (1953)).
  • Succession of Dinwiddie 263 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    177 , (1965); Succession of Reilly, supra; , (1953).
  • Succession of Walters 259 So. 2d 12 La. 1972
    To the same effect is , (1953).
  • Succession of Fournet 195 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (1953); Succession of Johnson, 223 La.
  • Succession of Hammett 183 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    1087 , (1954); , (1953); Succession of La Barre, 179 La.
  • Succession of McCarron 172 So. 2d 63 La. 1965
    636 , , , , and Succession of Milne, 230 La.
  • Succession of McCarron 172 So. 2d 63 La. 1965
    636 , , Succession of Rougon, *424 , , and Succession of Milne, 230 La.
  • Giroir v. Dumesnil 172 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Succession of Price, 202 La.
  • Succession of Simms 175 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
  • Succession of McCarron 166 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    636 , ; , ; Succession of Milne, 230 La.
  • Succession of Israel 163 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    * * * ” In , the Court said: “It is fundamental that in the interpretation of a last will the intention of the testator is all important and controlling and the ascertainment of it must be undertaken, without departing, however, from the proper signification of the terms of the testament.
  • Succession of Shows 158 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    15 ; , ; Succession of Thibodeaux, 238 La.
  • Oroszy v. Burkard 158 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    In , , our Supreme Court held: "It is fundamental that in the interpretation of a last will the intention of the testator is all important and controlling and the ascertainment of it must be undertaken, without departing, however, from the proper signification of the terms of the testament.
  • Succession of Brown 146 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Succession of Earhart, 220 La.
  • In Re Succession of Abraham. 136 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    *477 In , , the Supreme Court set out the following principle which should be applied in the interpretation of wills: "It is fundamental that in the interpretation of a last will the intention of the testator is all important and controlling and the ascertainment of it must be undertaken, without departing, howev
  • In Re Succession of Meadors 135 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    *683 Still another definition is stated in , (1953), as: "* * * A substitution is an attempt on the part of the donor or testator to make a testament for his donee or legatee along with his own will, and to substitute his own will for the legal order of succession from his donee or legatee.
  • Succession of Thilborger 101 So. 2d 678 La. 1958
    In the recent case of , , the court said: “Citing the Ledbetter case [Succession of Ledbetter, 147 La.
  • In Re Succession of Milne 89 So. 2d 281 La. 1956
    See, also, , ; Succession of Earhart, 220 La.
  • Succession of Rolling 86 So. 2d 687 La. 1956
  • Succession of Ryan 82 So. 2d 759 La. 1955