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 Rusha, 103 So. 515.

15 citing documents.

  • Succession of Merritt 581 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    726 (1925); Sucession of Rusha, , 103 So.
  • In re the Succession of Baskin 349 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Succession of Drumm 333 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Succession of Stewart 287 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    1037 , -7 (1966), wherein it was stated: “The defendants rely mainly upon , 103 So.
  • Campbell v. Pickering 271 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Giroir v. Dumesnil 184 So. 2d 1 La. 1966
    The defendants rely mainly upon , 103 So.
  • Giroir v. Dumesnil 172 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    It is to be noted that Article 1712, supra, expressly proscribes an interpretation which departs “from the proper signification of the terms of the testament.” Peculiarly applicable to the case at bar is the following language which we approvingly quote from , 103 So.
  • Succession of Shows 166 So. 2d 261 La. 1964
  • Succession of Shows 158 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    1715, 1575, and 1576 of the Civil Code, that "`* * * it is clear that parol proof of the verbal declarations of the testator, made at the time of the making of the codicil in this case, cannot be received as one of the "circumstances which may aid in the discovery of his intention."' "As was well stated in , 103 So.
  • Succession of Faggard 152 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
    1715, 1575, and 1576 of the Civil Code, that "* * * it is clear that parol proof of the verbal declarations of the testator, made at the time of the making of the codicil in this case, cannot be received as one of the `circumstances which may aid in the discovery of his intention.'" As was well stated in , 103 So.
  • Succession of Wallis 14 So. 2d 749 La. 1943
  • Succession of Butterworth 196 So. 39 La. 1940
  • In Re Clover Ridge Planting & Mfg. Co. 193 So. 468 La. 1939
    art. 575, and is not to be fixed by the judge in cases where the fund in dispute, and from which such judgment may be paid, is not in the registry of the court.’ “(2) , 103 So.
  • Kupperman v. Moore 166 So. 519 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1936
  • Succession of Maginnis 104 So. 726 La. 1925
    s abrogated.” Construing article 1715 with articles 1575 and 1576 of the Civil Code, it is clear that parol proof of the verbal declarations of the testator, made at the time of the making of the codicil in this case, cannot be received as one of the “circumstances which may aid in the discovery of his intention.” _ In the recent case of Succession of Rusha, No. 26278 on the docket of this court, , 1 we held that: “Testamentary dispositions can be made only in writing in the form and manner pres