Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Serio v. Trainor, 71 So. 215.

36 citing documents.

Succession of Aycock 819 So. 2d 290 La. 2002
American Bank & Trust Co. of Coushatta v. McDowell 545 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Succession of Bacot 502 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
The Court then quoted with approval the following language from , 71 So.
Cummings v. Wafer 499 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Succession of Moran 479 So. 2d 350 La. 1985
Succession of Raiford 404 So. 2d 251 La. 1981
Succession of Montero 365 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
NOTES [1] In the Court reasoned there is "a physical difference between a document without a date and one with an uncertain date" and it approved the use of extraneous evidence to remove the uncertainty or ambiguity.
Succession of Boyd 306 So. 2d 687 La. 1975
Poche v. Frazier 232 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
Succession of Gafford 180 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
In an earlier decision, , 71 So.
Succession of Koerkel 174 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
It would appear the case resulting in the most confusion is that of , 71 So.
Succession of Gaudin 140 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
The two principal cases relied upon by proponents of the will are , 71 So.
Spears v. Biles 121 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
For instance, it was stated by the Supreme Court, in , 71 So.
Succession of Gaudin 98 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Succession of Mutin 94 So. 2d 420 La. 1957
*423 51, and Succession of McCay, supra.
Succession of Morales 94 So. 2d 420 La. 1957
Succession of Reynolds 71 So. 2d 537 La. 1954
Rea v. Dow Motor Co. 36 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Succession of Patterson 22 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
He cites as authority for the view that where a will is opposed the evidence must be considerably stronger than where there is no opposition; , 71 So.
Ingargiola v. Schnell 11 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1942
522 , Ann.Cas.1914D, 1207; , 71 So.
Hornsby v. Rives 2 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Succ'n of Lefort, , 71 So.
Succession of Stallings 1 So. 2d 690 La. 1941
In the case of the , page 73 (par.
Succession of Butterworth 196 So. 39 La. 1940
Succession of Tyler 188 So. 31 La. 1939
Ducote v. Ducote 165 So. 133 La. 1935
Crescent Realty Corp. of Delaware v. McFlynn 159 So. 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Succession of Rassat 157 So. 412 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1934
Vaughan v. Canik 152 So. 364 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1934
Succession of Wenling 135 So. 21 La. 1931
In Sucession of Lefort, , 71 So.
L. Wemple Co. v. Felger Lumber Co. 125 So. 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Ledet v. Succession of Ledet 124 So. 150 La. 1929
Menzel v. Southern Stevedoring Co. 7 La. App. 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Northwestern Bottle Co. v. Rosen 8 La. App. 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Succession of Beattie 112 So. 802 La. 1926
Succession of Damico 91 So. 286 La. 1922
Succession of Cunningham 77 So. 506 La. 1918
“The case of , 71 South.