Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brand v. Mornhinveg, 95 So. 603.

20 citing documents.

In Re Spraggins 234 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
730 , , the Supreme Court said: "It is the settled jurisprudence of this court that adoption statutes are to be strictly complied with, , 95 So.
In re Adoption of Bickerstaff 190 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
730 , , the Court stated: “It is the settled jurisprudence of this court that adoption statutes are to be strictly complied with, In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
In Re Hughes 176 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Succession of Marquette 167 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1964
498 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
In Re Ackenhausen 154 So. 2d 380 La. 1963
It is the settled jurisprudence of this court that adoption statutes are to be strictly complied with, In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
In re Ackenhausen 146 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
498 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
Gary v. Gary 143 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Crumpacker v. Spalding 132 So. 2d 875 La. 1961
In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
Crumpacker v. Spalding 126 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
498 ; In re Brand’s Estate, , 95 So.
Lyons v. Goodman 78 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Succession of GAMBINO 73 So. 2d 800 La. 1954
498 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
State Ex Rel. Simpson v. Salter 31 So. 2d 163 La. 1947
This Court held in Re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
Foster v. Richardson 28 So. 2d 610 La. 1946
796 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
Owles v. Jackson 7 So. 2d 192 La. 1942
498 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
Succession of Dyer 166 So. 68 La. 1936
498 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
Hardy v. Mobley 164 So. 621 La. 1935
Person v. Person 135 So. 225 La. 1931
400 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
State Ex Rel. Monroe v. Ford 113 So. 798 La. 1927
In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.
Succession of Brand 111 So. 267 La. 1927
The validity of the act as one of adaption-was put at issue in a suit of the present opponent (Brand v. Mornhinveg, Executor, , 95 So.
Pullen v. Pullen 109 So. 400 La. 1926
881 ; In re Brands’ Estate, , 95 So.