Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Lacosst, 77 So. 497.

13 citing documents.

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. Perkins 29 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Mfg. Co. 22 So. 2d 842 La. 1944
In the Perkins case, we held that the modes of acknowledgment specified in the Code were exclusive ( , 77 So.
Wilson v. Rogers 14 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Ellis v. Union Compress & Warehouse Co. 178 So. 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
The earlier decisions were almost uniform in holding that an illegitimate child could prove acknowledgment by his parents in other ways than those provided by article 203 of the Revised Civil Code, namely, by showing that the parents recognized him as their child, held him out to the world as such, and cared for him; however, in , 77 So.
Succession of Willis 175 So. 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Succession of Westheimer 172 So. 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
The Supreme Court of this state, after a careful review of previous decisions, in , 77 So.
Barranco v. Davis 142 So. 844 La. 1932
Stewart v. Parish of Jefferson Davis 136 So. 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Wells v. White-Grandin Lumber Co. 129 So. 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
674 , at page 684, , a situation almost similar to the one here presented with reference to this birth certificate had to be considered by the Supreme Court, and in the opinion in that case, we read: “It would indeed be a dangerous doctrine to hold that the declaration of a midwife, having the birth of an illegitimate child recorde
Penn v. Jones 5 La. App. 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Succession of Simonette Reason Falls 4 La. App. 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Gullung v. Dalgarn Construction Co. 1 La. App. 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
Minor v. Young 81 So. 208 La. 1919
The district judge, observing an opinion expressed by the court of appeal (prior to the ruling of this court in the , 77 South.