DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Savoie v. Estate of Rogers, 410 So. 2d 683.

17 citing documents.

  • Succession of Billy Dean Campbell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    13:3722 (emphasis added) requires that “the debt or liability of the deceased must be proved by the testimony of at least one creditable witness other than the claimant, and other corroborating circumstances.” the supreme court held: This provision implies that the witness whose testimony is necessary for proof of the claim against the deceased cannot be a co-owner of the claim.
  • Succession of Jones 154 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Alice Moncrief v. Succession of Leslie Thomas Armstrong La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Moncrief v. Succession of Armstrong 939 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Toups v. Toups 702 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • In re the Succession of Moore 696 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Harper v. J.B. Wells Estate 575 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Bricks Unlimited, Inc. v. Stepter 538 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    " (emphasis added) See also; (La.
  • Bank of Greensburg v. Forrest 520 So. 2d 728 La. 1988
  • Gormley v. Grand Lodge of State of La. 503 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    This assertion has merit in that the interest of a witness cannot completely disqualify him from testifying but only bears on the weight to be given his testimony
  • Hebert v. Estate of Savoie 499 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    the Supreme Court stated: “we now hold that a person who has a direct pecuniary or proprietary interest in the plaintiffs claim against the deceased person may not serve as his one credible witness.” Savoie, 410 So.2d at 687 .
  • C & D Pressure Testing, Inc. v. Estate of Darbonne 469 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Art. 2282 provided: “The circumstance of the witness being a relation, a party to the cause, interested in the result of the suit, or in the actual service or salary of one of the parties, is not a sufficient cause to consider the witness as incompetent, but may, according to circumstances, diminish the extent of his credibility.” our Supreme Court held that “A person who has a direct pecuniary or proprietary interest in the plaintiff’s claim against the deceased person may not serve as his one
  • Rachal v. Charrier 449 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    13:3721 the debt or liability of the deceased must be proved by the testimony of at least one creditable witness other than the claimant, and other corroborating circumstances.” The Louisiana Supreme Court, (La.
  • Financial Corp. v. Estate of Cooley 447 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Savoie v. Estate of Rogers 442 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    at 687 the court stated: “...
  • Succession of Flach 437 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Bourque v. Schroeder 418 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    3rd Cir. 1981), reversed on other grounds, wherein we stated: “The purpose of the deadman’s statute is to protect the assets of a deceased person from stale and unfounded claims that the deceased might have refuted.