DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jones v. Mason, 99 So. 2d 46.

13 citing documents.

  • Succession of Altazan 682 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Moreover, , (1958) this court applied that presumption of revocation in a case in which a testator executed his will in multiple copies, one original and several carbon copies.
  • In re the Succession of Vicaro 612 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    (1958), multiple copies of one will surfaced after the decedent’s death.
  • Succession of Talbot 530 So. 2d 1132 La. 1988
    (1958); Smith v. Shaw, 221 La.
  • In re the Succession of Talbot 516 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Dickerson v. Jordan 514 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    art. 1849; , (1958); Loprestie v. Roy Motors, 191 La.
  • Succession of Beard 483 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    (1958) is applicable to the case at bar.
  • Pierce v. Gervais 425 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Art. 2288, , (1958), Boyd v. New England Mutual Life Ins.
  • Succession of Brumfield 401 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    us of rebutting this presumption is cast upon those seeking to establish the will, by clear proof (1) that the testator made a valid will, (2) proof of the contents or substance of the will, and (3) of the fact that the will, though it could not be found at the testator’s death after diligent search, was never revoked by him.” The presumption provided for by Nunley is a weak one, ( , (1953), but nonetheless the burden is upon the proponent of the missing testament to prove that it was not in fac
  • In Re Succession of Jones 356 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Rivette v. Moreau 341 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Moore v. Moore 187 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    (1958) and cases cited therein.
  • Walton v. Bufkin 135 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Article 1848, that fraud must be proved, the article further provides that such proof may be effected by simple presumptions or by legal presumptions as well as by other evidence, and specifically declares “the maxim that fraud is not to be presumed, means no more than that it is not to be imputed without legal evidence.” In Jones, et al. v. Mason, et al., , , the opinion of Mr. Justice Hawthorne clearly states the definition and applicability of such a presumption in the following language: “Ar
  • Jones v. Mason 124 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960