Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Burke, 107 La. 82.

31 citing documents.

Clementine Fairrow v. James E. Marves La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
129 (1902); Succession of Burke, 10 So.
Fairrow v. Marves 862 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Harvey v. Amoco Production Co. 620 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
This distinction was explained in , 31 So.
Wood v. Wood 424 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Curtis v. Curtis 403 So. 2d 56 La. 1981
Phillips v. Nereaux 357 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Primeaux v. Libersat 307 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Williams v. Williams 199 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
1st Cir. 1965); Payton v. Jones, La.App., (1949); , 31 So.
Succession of Winsey 170 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Butler v. Burks 99 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Thomas v. Winsey 76 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Guilbeau v. Guilbeau 71 So. 2d 129 La. 1954
Slaton v. King 36 So. 2d 648 La. 1948
Slaton v. King 30 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Betz v. Riviere 29 So. 2d 465 La. 1947
Baker v. Baker 21 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
This presumption can be rebutted when the purchase is made by the wife, but, said the Supreme Court, through justice Blanchard, in the case of , 31 So.
Sanderson v. Frost 3 So. 2d 626 La. 1941
Adkins v. Cason 170 So. 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Holstead v. Lewis 160 So. 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App. 387, 389 , it was said: “Neither interest nor attorney’s fees are due on a writ for execu-tory process, when it does not appear that a suit was necessary.” To the same effect are , 31 So.
W. K. Henderson Iron Works & Supply Co. v. Meriwether Supply Co. 152 So. 69 La. 1934
Succession of Caranne 147 So. 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Succession of Erwin 142 So. 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
McGill v. Urban 120 So. 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Kittredge v. Grau 103 So. 723 La. 1925
Succession of Goll 101 So. 263 La. 1924
Rodriguez v. Succession of McFettridge 100 So. 68 La. 1924
“But when the husband, during marriage, buys property in his name, intending it as an investment of his separate funds, to be héld for his individual account and not that of the cdmmunity, it is essential that some indication of this intention, and of the character of the funds used, be given in the act.” , 31 South.
Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Thorengren 5 Pelt. 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1921
2399 (2369), 3402 ( 2371); Bachino vs Coste, 35 A. 570 ; 41 A. 274 ; 42 A. 357 ; 43 A. 144 ; 47 A. 768 ; 50 A. 216 ; 1220; 105 La., 35 ; ; 111 La.
Deshotels v. Lafleur 64 So. 905 La. 1914
Succession of Graf 51 So. 115 La. 1909
Neuhauser v. Barthe 34 So. 793 La. 1903
Sharp v. Zeller 34 So. 129 La. 1902
The title would be an uncertain, floating title, neither advisable nor permissible.” , 31 South.