Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tweedel v. Brasseaux, 433 So. 2d 133.

73 citing documents.

Sonnier v. Boudreaux 673 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Green v. Culpepper 652 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Moreland v. Smith, 457 |9So.2d 748 (La.App.
LOUISIANA GAMING v. Jerry's Package Store 629 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Homer Nat. Bank v. Springlake Farms, Inc. 616 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Succession of Ruppert 602 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
However, “there is no legal requirement that the notary read the instruments; certainly there is no requirement that the witnesses read the instrument.” To be an authentic act, the notary and both witnesses must be present to witness the contracting parties’ signatures.
Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies 569 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Dugas v. Modular Quarters, Inc. 561 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
quoting Ray v. McLain, 106 La.
Bonnett v. Mize 556 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
for the proposition that a justice of the peace can validly notarize a donation of immovable property.
Cheek v. Uptown Square Wine Merchants 538 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
SHREVERPORT GR. EMPIRE BROAD., INC. v. Chicoine 528 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Tate v. Hanover Ins. Co. 526 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
BNO Leasing Corp. v. Hollins & Hollins, Inc., (5th Cir.1984) writ denied
Barras & Breaux v. Champeaux 526 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Hartford Acc. & Indem. v. Louisiana Minority, Inc. 522 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Parlay Enterprises v. Rb-Co., Inc. 504 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
In re J.E.C. 487 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
BNO Leasing Corp. v. Hollins & Hollins, Inc., (5th Cir. 1984); Ray v. McLain, 106 La.
In Re JEC 487 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
BNO Leasing Corp. v. Hollins & Hollins, Inc., (5th Cir. 1984); Ray v. McLain, 106 La.
Brabham v. Harper 485 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Hardin v. Williams 478 So. 2d 1214 La. 1985
held a donation inter vivos of immovable property was valid, and stated in part: "George T. Tweedel and his wife, Lillian, [donors] signed the instruments before two witnesses and a notary public as required by the article.
Hoover v. Mid-South Exploration Co., Inc. 479 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Ortolano v. Snowizard Mfg., Inc. 476 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
494, 495 (1878), that "signatures to an obligation are not mere ornaments."
Hardin v. Williams 468 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
In reversing both lower courts’ decisions rescinding the donations inter vivos of immovable property, the Supreme Court, per Watson, J., reasoned, in part, that: “George T. Tweedel and his wife, Lillian, [donors] signed the instrument before two witnesses and a notary public as required by the article.
Thibodeaux v. American Land & Exploration, Inc. 450 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
BNO Leasing Corp. v. Hollins & Hollins, Inc. 448 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984