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 Woolfolk, 71 So. 2d 861.

26 citing documents.

  • Succession of Ronnie Mack Goodman La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
  • Succession of Charles B. Fanz, Jr. . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
    11/14/18), ( So.2d 861, 864 (1954)).
  • In re Dauterive 251 So. 3d 1204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Bailey v. Eikert 210 So. 3d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    As the supreme court explained in the context of a manual gift in , (1954): By the terms of Article 1539 of the LSA-C.C., “The manual gift, that is, the giving of corporal movable effects, accompanied by real delivery, is not subject to any formality.” This article does not dispense, however, with the necessity of proof of intention on the part of the donor to give.
  • O'Krepki v. O'Krepki 193 So. 3d 574 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
  • Jones v. Jones 86 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • In Re Succession of Jones 986 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • Rivoire v. Maturin 816 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Succession of Serio 597 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Succession of Young 563 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Succession of Diffey 543 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Succession of Daroca 536 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    *467 the issue was “whether George Arthur Johnson made a valid inter vivos donation to Ms. Ruth D. Reddick of $49,970.80 in a joint bank account.” The court answered the issue by stating: Overlooked by the court of appeal here is the requirement stated in , (1954): “...
  • Broussard v. Crochet, Broussard & Co. 477 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    3rd Cir.1975); , (1954).
  • Butler v. Reddick 431 So. 2d 396 La. 1983
    Overlooked by the court of appeal here is the requirement stated in , (1954): "...
  • Succession of Miller 405 So. 2d 812 La. 1981
  • Hayes v. Dompe 331 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    (1954); writ denied, ; Faust v. Curtis, et al
  • TL James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery 308 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    As was stated in , (1954): "This article (Art. 1539) does not dispense, however, with the necessity of proof of intention on the part of the donor to give.
  • Woodward v. Lewis 292 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    This principle was further emphasized by Justice Le Blanc of the Supreme Court in the , (1954), wherein it was pointed out: "By the terms of Article 1539 of the LSA-C.C., `The manual gift, that is, the giving of corporeal movable effects, accompanied by real delivery, is not subject to any formality.'
  • Faust v. Curtis 278 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Succession of Brewster 259 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    1092 , (1946); , (1954).
  • Simon v. Trahan 235 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Succession of Oulliber v. Oulliber 204 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    Funderburk v. Funderburk, 214 La.
  • Vela v. Slavich 185 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Succession of Moses 145 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    “The manual gift, that is, the giving of corporeal movable effects accompanied by real delivery, is not subject to any formality.” The trial judge based his decision in Succession of Woolfolk, 1954, , .
  • Moody v. Gossen 125 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Plaintiff further relies on , , wherein proof of a manual gift was considered, that court stated; “ * * * The manual gift, that is, the giving of corporeal movable effects, accompanied by real delivery, is not subject to any formality.’ This article does not dispense, however, with the necessity of proof of intention on the par
  • Succession of McCrocklin 126 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Succession of Woolfolk, 1954, , .