Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Jahraus, 38 So. 417.
- State v. Davis 176 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- Polk v. Polk 626 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
- Petty v. Petty 560 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- Succession of Bacot 502 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
- Succession of Green v. Mears 499 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
-
Succession of Lamy
454 So. 2d 290
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
3rd Cir.1966), the court cites the leading case of , 38 So.
- Gray v. Gray 451 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
- Thomas v. Thomas 440 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
- Cook v. Cook 436 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
- Castle v. Prudhomme Tank Truck Line, Inc. 417 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
- Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 354 So. 2d 1031 La. 1978
- Succession of Keuhling 187 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
-
Succession of Washington
140 So. 2d 906
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
A few of them are: , 38 So.
-
Succession of Moore
94 So. 2d 666
La. 1957
* * *" In the leading case of , 38 So.
-
Succession Moore
94 So. 2d 666
La. 1957
* * * ” In the leading case of , 38 So.
- Succession of Franz 94 So. 2d 270 La. 1957
- Succession of Roth 94 So. 2d 270 La. 1957
- Succession of Cervini 84 So. 2d 818 La. 1955
- Succession of Washington 63 So. 2d 610 La. 1953
-
Paxton v. Paxton
173 So. 488
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Those who afterwards marry are excepted from this rule.” In a clear and exhaustive opinion, the Supreme Court, in the , 38 So.
- Succession of Lannes 174 So. 94 La. 1936
- Purvis v. Purvis 162 So. 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Sizeler v. Sizeler 127 So. 388 La. 1930
- Jones v. Kyle 123 So. 306 La. 1929
-
Texada v. Spence
118 So. 120
La. 1928
of Jahraus, *1027 , 38 So.
-
Gauff v. Johnson
109 So. 782
La. 1926
Code, art. 1481, upon which plaintiffs’ action is founded, was interpreted by this court in the , 38 So.
-
Succession of Filhiol
49 So. 138
La. 1909
se and this being that, in the case cited, the executrix, “might have learned from any member of the bar” that it could not be defended, whereas the particular question, concerning the validity of the legacy presented for decision in the instant case, had but once before been considered, and then in a case in which a bequest, attacked on similar grounds, had been sustained ( , 38 South.