DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Vance, 34 So. 767.

23 citing documents.

  • Jenkins v. Mangano Corp. 774 So. 2d 101 La. 2000
  • Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir 705 So. 2d 724 La. 1997
  • Chatelain v. STATE, DOTD 586 So. 2d 1373 La. 1991
  • IMC Exploration Co. v. Henderson 419 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    250 (1850), and , 34 So.
  • Succession of Matte 346 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    250 (1850), and , 34 So.
  • Hibbert v. Mudd 187 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Goins v. Gates 93 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    A review of the decisions of our courts on this subject from the early case of Succession of Vance, 1903, , 34 So.
  • Wallace v. Banks 52 So. 2d 858 La. 1951
    Jung v. Doriocourt, supra; Robinett v. Verdun’s Vendees, supra; , 34 So.
  • Lee v. Hunter 23 So. 2d 61 La. 1945
  • Ellis v. Union Compress & Warehouse Co. 178 So. 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Succession of Haydel 177 So. 695 La. 1937
  • Succession of Corsey 131 So. 841 La. 1930
  • Succession of Barr 122 So. 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
  • Succession of Cloud 7 La. App. 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    And they have no greater capacity to take under dispositions mortis causa.” Succession of Vance , 34 South.
  • Marshall v. Smedley 117 So. 323 La. 1928
  • Ford v. Calhoun 6 La. App. 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    851 , the court said (page 142): “In , 34 South.
  • Murdock v. Potter 99 So. 18 La. 1923
    Also, in the , 34 South.
  • Minor v. Young 87 So. 472 La. 1920
    natural or illegitimate child to inherit (under the latter even adulterous or spurious children might inherit from the mother); and there'appears to have been no such thing as an informal verbal acknowledgment, as distinguished from proof of filiation or enforced judicial acknowledgment, under the French law, as has been held essential in the decisions of this court, such as , 34 South.
  • Succession of Lacosst 77 So. 497 La. 1917
  • Briggs v. McLaughlin 63 So. 851 La. 1913
    570 .” In the case thus cited it was held that: As “between heirs, acknowledged as required by article 209, C. C., and collateral heirs, not acknowledged at all, the court holds that the former are entitled to inherit.” In , 34 South.
  • State v. Treadaway 52 So. 500 La. 1910
  • Hodges' Heirs v. Kell 51 So. 77 La. 1910
    On the face of the instrument the parties might well be in no wise connected with or related to him, as was the case of the wife of Turner , 34 South.
  • Succession of Elmore 49 So. 989 La. 1909
    Ann. 590 , and , 34 South.