Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Monk v. Monk, 144 So. 2d 384.

37 citing documents.

Daniel J. Saloom, Et Al. v. State Of Louisiana, Department Of Transportation And Development La. 2022
Larry Sylvester Cola, Jr. v. Tonya Leatherman Cola La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1981); So.2d 384 ( 1962).
Louisiana Board of Ethics In re Great Southern Dredging, Inc. 195 So. 3d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
While correct that upon dissolution of the community property regime, each spouse is recognized as the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the community property ( ), Great Southern’s argument ignores the express provision of Louisiana Civil Code article 2336, that during the existence of the community property regime, “[ejach spouse owns a present undivided one-half interest in the community *637 property.” (Emphasis added.)
Scobee v. Brame 721 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
-88 (La.1962) (citations omitted).
Pattan v. Fields 669 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1st Cir.1992) , (1962) (La.App.
Albert v. Albert 625 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
1st Cir.1987); , (1962).
Conner v. Conner 515 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(1962); Freeman, 430 So.2d at 680 .
Levatino v. Levatino 506 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Lee v. Manning 505 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Blanchard v. Naquin 476 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Mahmud v. Mahmud 444 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
(1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the rule as it had been developed in the jurisprudence.
McElroy v. Allstate Ins. Co. 420 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Garrett v. Walker 407 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
and the cases cited therein.
Curtis v. Curtis 403 So. 2d 56 La. 1981
(1962); Betz v. Riviere, 211 La.
Hardaway v. Martin 401 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Babineaux v. Black 396 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Sarpy v. Sarpy 354 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
(1962); Koerber v. City of New Orleans, 228 La.
McGee v. Harris 333 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
art. 2236; , (1962); (La.App.
Nelson v. Nelson 311 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
490 , ; , ; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Crigler, La.App.
Succession of Pittman 282 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
575 ], , Monk v. Monk [ ] 144 So.
Succession of Milton 278 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., supra; , .
Succession of Barr 219 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
(1962); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La.
Succession of Elrod v. Elrod 218 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
(1962); Prince v. Hopson, 230 La.
Pond v. Campbell 207 So. 2d 535 La. 1968
Succession of Addison, 212 La.
Succession of Barr 203 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Prince v. Hopson, 230 La.
Alexander v. Bates 192 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
(1962): “ ‘It has long been a fundamental principle deeply embedded in our law and jurisprudence that title to realty cannot he established by waiver or by estoppel; for one can never be divested of his title to realty except in the manner prescribed by law,’ such as by deed, inheritance, or prescripti
Moore v. Moore 187 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
Levy v. Joseph 180 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Prince v. Hopson, 230 La.
Succession of Smith 175 So. 2d 269 La. 1965
[5] Article 2402, LSA-Civil Code; , ; Succession of LeJeune, 221 La.
Succession of Ridley 175 So. 2d 269 La. 1965
Article 2402, LSA-Civil Code; , ; Succession of LeJeune, 221 La.
Veillon v. Sylvester 174 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
See Employers' Fire Insurance Company v. Vincent, La.App.Orl., , , .
Succession of Hollier 158 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
490 , ; , ; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Crigler, La.App.
Distinguished Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Jones 160 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
(1962) has been cited by all counsel.
Glassell v. Dickerson 159 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
It is our opinion, in accordance with that of the trial judge, , .
Airhart v. Airhart 153 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
and the many cases cited therein.
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Boudoin 154 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
"`It has long been a fundamental principle deeply embedded in our law and jurisprudence that title to realty cannot be established by waiver or by estoppel; for one can never be divested of his title to realty except in the manner prescribed by law,' such as by deed, inheritance, or prescription", , -388 .
Succession of Caldwell 147 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962