Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kelly v. Kelly, 60 So. 671.

32 citing documents.

Succession of Venture 682 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
599 ; Kelly v. Kelly, [ , 60 So.
Little v. Little 391 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
599 ; Kelly v. Kelly, [ , 60 So.
Whitten v. Whitten 303 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Blalock v. Blalock 259 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
Williams v. Collier 249 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Magee v. Stacey 223 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Nelson v. Walker 189 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Article 12 states: “Whatever is done in contravention of a prohibitory law, is void, although the nullity be not formally directed.” See Kelly v. Kelly (1913), , 60 So.
Lloyd v. Register 184 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
See Kelly v. Kelly (1913) , 60 So.
Tilton v. Tilton 162 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
Foster v. Smith 159 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Burch v. Nichols 126 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
City of Alexandria v. Shevnin 126 So. 2d 336 La. 1961
1085 , ; see, also, , 60 So.
Smith v. Smith 119 So. 2d 827 La. 1960
Miller v. Miller 102 So. 2d 52 La. 1957
Camus v. Camus 91 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Ducote v. Stark 87 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Sonnier v. Fris 58 So. 2d 393 La. 1952
On Rehearing, at page 1028, 60 So.
Sonnier v. Fris 58 So. 2d 393 La. 1952
On Rehearing, at page 1028, 60 So.
Kennedy v. Johnson Lumber Co. 33 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Boxwell v. Department of Highways 14 So. 2d 627 La. 1943
Boxwell v. Department of Highways 14 So. 2d 627 La. 1943
Succession of Rabouin 9 So. 2d 529 La. 1942
Little v. Barbe 198 So. 368 La. 1940
Rawlings v. Stokes 193 So. 589 La. 1940
Dares v. O'Donnell 151 So. 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
1025 , ; Burns v. Thompson, 39 La.
Nulsen v. Herndon 147 So. 359 La. 1933
Succession of Franklin 127 So. 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Ann. 162 , it was said: *291 “The wife’s interest in the community is residuary — one half of what remains after its debts are paid.” See, also, Kelly vs. Kelly, , 60 So.
Armand v. Armand 8 La. App. 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
302 , the court said: "The terms of this law appear to throw a certain incapacity upon every citizen to dispose and divest himself of all of his property by donation inter vivos, and declares that such donation shall be null (not reducible) if he has not reserved to himself enough of his property for his subsistence, etc.” *813 And in Kelly vs. Kelly, , 60 So.
Ely v. Coreil 116 So. 834 La. 1928
Succession of Crouch 8 La. App. 86 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1927
324; Kelly vs. Kelly, , 60 So.
Peters v. Klein 109 So. 349 La. 1926
Welch v. Forest Lumber Co. 92 So. 400 La. 1922