Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Jahraus, 38 So. 417.

27 citing documents.

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.