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 Andrus, 60 So. 623.

25 citing documents.

  • Succession of Erbelding 509 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Phillips v. Nereaux 357 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Barnett v. Barnett 339 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • Succession of Barr 219 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
  • Locantro v. Petrie 144 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
  • Buffington v. Buffington 119 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    the Collector suggest that to come to the conclusion we have here reached will lead to confusion when treating of usufruct, since the usufructuary occupies the same position with reference to the ‘products’ or ‘fruits’ of the property subject to the usufruct as the community occupies with reference to the ‘profits’ or ‘fruits’ of the separate property of the spouses, , 60 So.
  • Abunza v. Olivier 88 So. 2d 815 La. 1956
    To the same effect, , 60 So.
  • Milling v. Collector of Revenue 57 So. 2d 679 La. 1952
    the Collector suggest that to- come to the conclusion we have here reached will-lead to confusion when treating of usufruct, since the usufructuary occupies the same position with reference to the “products” or “fruits” of the property subject to the usufruct as the community occupies with reference to the “profits” or “fruits” of the separate property of the spouses, , 60 So.
  • Milling v. Collector of Revenue 57 So. 2d 679 La. 1952
    the Collector suggest that to come to the conclusion we have here reached will lead to confusion when treating of usufruct, since the usufructuary occupies the same position with reference to the "products" or "fruits" of the property subject to the usufruct as the community occupies with reference to the "profits" or "fruits" of the separate property of the spouses, , 60 So.
  • Coney v. Coney 56 So. 2d 841 La. 1951
  • Coney v. Coney 56 So. 2d 841 La. 1951
  • Slaton v. King 36 So. 2d 648 La. 1948
  • Slaton v. King 30 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Baker v. Baker 21 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Talbert v. Talbert 7 So. 2d 173 La. 1942
    The trial judge so found and, based upon his finding, decreed that appellee was “entitled to take and receive as his separate property out of the cattle on hand 250 head to replace the number of cattle owned by him at the time of his marriage * * The decree was rendered on the authority of the , 60 So.
  • Sanderson v. Frost 3 So. 2d 626 La. 1941
  • Succession of Provost 181 So. 802 La. 1938
  • Howard v. Ingle 180 So. 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Adkins v. Cason 170 So. 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Uchello v. Arnold 135 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    Code, art. 2402; , 60 So.
  • State v. Genna 112 So. 655 La. 1927
  • Sissung v. North River Insurance 5 La. App. 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    R. C. C. 2402; , 60 South.
  • Kittredge v. Grau 103 So. 723 La. 1925
  • Succession of Goll 101 So. 263 La. 1924
  • Succession of Watkins 101 So. 395 La. 1924