Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Mulqueeny, 181 So. 2d 384.

17 citing documents.

In Re Succession of Templet 977 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
In Secession of Mulqueeny, -69 , (1965), the Louisiana Supreme Court made it clear that the term "cash" encompasses more than merely physical currency, stating that: [T]he reference to `cash' in the legacies to the .
Succession of Neff 716 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
In , (1965), the court declined to apply Art. 1723 to inconsistent provisions in the same instrument.
Succession of Duhon 503 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
and , (1965), as authority for their respective positions.
Matter of Succession of Farr 421 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Burkes v. Barbour 364 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
This type of building and loan stocks or shares has been characterized by the supreme court as "`merely a deposit of a sum of money at a fixed rate of interest, the principal and interest being all subject to withdrawal at any time.'" , (La.
Succession of Burgess 359 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
275 , (1957), , (1966) and C.C.
Succession of Waterman 298 So. 2d 731 La. 1974
(1965); Giroir v. Dumesnil, 248 La.
Succession of Dinwiddie 263 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
Succession of Hammett 261 So. 2d 611 La. 1972
La.Civil Code art. 1713; , (1965).
Succession of Hammett 247 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Succession of Chauvin 242 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
In , , the Supreme Court held that optional share accounts were available to satisfy cash legacies, even though the accounts in question had been willed to another legatee.
Succession of Grigsby v. Hamilton 219 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
The later case of , (1965) has no application to the question here presented.
Succession of Mulqueeny 218 So. 2d 607 La. 1969
In , S4, this court ordered the cash legacies to the three Blackmar sisters to be paid from certain homestead accounts ■which' had been bequeathed to Mrs. Early, the executrix; recognized the right ■of the forced heir, Mrs. Prieto, who had not been mentioned in the testament; and •ordered that “ * * * all lega
Succession of Mulqueeny 207 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Succession of Guerre 197 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
(1965); Slater v. Culpepper, 222 La.
Succession of Videau 197 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
(1965); Succession of Gladney, 223 La.
Menard v. Muhs 196 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Succession of Homan, 202 La.