Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Eck, 98 So. 2d 181.

28 citing documents.

Succession of Michelle Beth Roy Booth and Robert Mark Booth, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
So.2d 181 [(1957)]; Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
In the Matter of the Succession of John Robert Biscamp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
So.2d 181 [ (1957) ]; Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
In re the Succession of Biscamp 211 So. 3d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
[ (1957) ]; Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
Succession of Holbrook 144 So. 3d 845 La. 2014
[ (1957) ]; Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
Succession of Edwards 619 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Succession of Guezuraga 512 So. 2d 366 La. 1987
Succession of Loeb 410 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Succession of Eck, [ , (1957)].
Evans v. Evans 410 So. 2d 729 La. 1982
Succession of Porche 288 So. 2d 27 La. 1973
[4] In holding to the contrary in the Succession of Wilson, the Second Circuit relied upon language in , (1957), as requiring the formal division of the will into dispositive portions and into an attestation clause, with the testator signing after each.
Succession of Porche 273 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1973
Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
Woodfork v. Sanders 248 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
We also find that our Supreme Court in obiter dictum in , (1957), suggested C.C.
McCullough v. Bridges 245 So. 2d 319 La. 1971
Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
Succession of Veal 242 So. 2d 551 La. 1970
Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
Succession of Morgan 242 So. 2d 551 La. 1970
See Succession of Eck, *553 , ; Succession of Nourse, 234 La.
Distinguished Succession of Peterson 240 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
The trial judge, in his reasons for judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action, found the Wilson case to be distinguishable, relying on the case of , (1957), decided by the Supreme Court in 1957.
Succession of Gordon 233 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
Ryland v. Wenner 224 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Succession of Suarez 219 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Succession of Babin 215 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
In the Succession of Nourse, supra, the Court quoted with approval the ruling in the , , wherein the testator signed at the end of the dispositive provisions but did not sign again after the attestation portion where only the signatures of the witnesses and the notary appeared.
Howard v. Gunter 215 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
Succession of Wilson 213 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
The attestation clause serves, as was pointed out in , (1957), and in to certify the facts and circumstances attending the execution of the will.
Succession of Chopin 214 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
The end of the will has been interpreted by our Supreme Court in , (1957), as being that place on the will where the dispositive provisions terminate, the dispositive provisions being those relating to the testamentary dispositions.
Succession of Broussard 210 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Land v. Succession of Newsom 193 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
691 , (1958) and the , (1957).
Succession of Michie 183 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
The attestation clause serves, as was held in , (1957), as a certificate certifying to the facts and circumstances attending the execution of the will.
Succession of Saarela 151 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
Succession of Thibodeaux 116 So. 2d 525 La. 1959
Succession of Nourse 101 So. 2d 204 La. 1958
In the very recent case of , , this Court had occasion to pass on the validity of a will which bore two attestation clauses — the testator alone having signed his name following the first, the witnesses and notary, but not the testator, having signed their names following the second — under attack as failing to comply with the