Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Bartie, 472 So. 2d 578.

34 citing documents.

Mona Leblanc v. Walmart Distribution Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Burnett v. Full Force Staffing, LLC 257 So. 3d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4th Cir. 1994) ( ; Succession of Lyons , (La.
Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 2007-2432, p. 19 (La.5/21/08), ; Chatelain v. State, Department of Transportation & Development, Bonvillain v. Preferred Industries & LWCC, 2004-0849, p. 12 (La.App.
Succession of Nellie Johnson Fruge Young La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
To satisfy the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must show “the existence of the disputed fact [is] highly probable, that is, much more probable than its non-existence.” Succession of Bartie
In Re Succession of Young 867 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Folse v. Folse 738 So. 2d 1040 La. 1999
Scherer v. Interior Plant Design 724 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Joseph v. Elmwood Medical Center 715 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir 705 So. 2d 724 La. 1997
Plaintiff argues that we hinted that a change in the burden of proof of Article 209 may be substantive in
Succession of Reeves 704 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
McGaughey v. City of New Orleans 695 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Succession of Lyons, supra [ ].
Daigrepont v. Grand Casino Avoyelles 692 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
3 Cir. 5/31/95) ; () this court held that “[t]o satisfy the clear and convincing standard, it must be established that the ‘existence of the disputed fact [is] highly probable, that is, much more probable than its non-existence.’” This court further held that a claimant may prove a disability by medical and lay testimony a
Gray v. Courtney Equipment Co. 689 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Fritz v. Home Furniture-Lafayette 677 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Chatelain v. State, DOTD, Bundren v. Affiliated Nursing Homes, Inc., 94-808 (La.App.
Banks v. Jefferson Parish School Board 670 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Cormier v. Resthaven Nursing Home 670 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Trucking 657 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Succession of Fletcher 653 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Pace v. STATE THROUGH LA. STATE EMP. RET. SYSTEM 648 So. 2d 1302 La. 1995
See, (striking down Civil Code article which did not provide for the revocation of a testament by the subsequent birth of an illegitimate child whose filiation to the testator parent had been established in the manner provided by law); (striking down provisions of forced heirship laws which excluded illegitimate children); (striking down Civil Code article which limited amount of a donation by a father to an illegitimate child to one-fourth of the father's property if the father was survived by
In Interest of CLS 649 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Succession of Dowling 633 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Succession of Lauga 624 So. 2d 1156 La. 1993
State ex rel. Manuel v. Manuel 619 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Hoffmann v. Lucia 604 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
1509 , 20 L.Ed.2d 436 (1968) (wrongful death damages); Succ’n of Bartie, (succession rights).
Talley v. Succession of Stuckey 604 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State ex rel. CH 599 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State in Interest of KD 586 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Chatelain v. STATE, DOTD 586 So. 2d 1373 La. 1991
McCormick on Evidence § 340(B) (3d ed. 1984)
State in Interest of J 582 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Willis v. Letulle 581 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Utz v. Kienzle 574 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Hines v. Williams 567 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Succession of Sanders 485 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Davis v. Lamont 481 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Construing art. 209 the court in stated, “The burden of proof where a plaintiff must prove his case by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence is an intermediate one which requires that the fact be proven to a degree greater than that involved in proof by a ‘preponderance’ of the evidence but to a degree less than involved in proof ‘beyond a r

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by