Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Gilmore, 102 So. 94.

49 citing documents.

Camille Landry v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Collins v. Estrade 638 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
1093 , (1953); , 102 So.
Gardebled v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 506 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield 434 So. 2d 1067 La. 1983
1093 , (1953); , 102 So.
Williams v. New York Fire & Marine Insurance 427 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
However, as stated by the Supreme Court in , 102 So.
Gladstone v. American Auto. Ass'n, Inc. 419 So. 2d 1219 La. 1982
Albert v. Lirette 394 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Succession of Skye 364 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Dare v. Myrick, La.App., , and cases therein cited.[ 1 ] In , 102 So.
Succession of Anderson 323 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
488 , ; , (La.App.3rd Cir. 1973); , 102 So.
Johnson v. Jones-Journet 320 So. 2d 533 La. 1975
Schoen v. Burns 321 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Johnson v. Jones-Journet 306 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
The law is to the contrary; Succession of Gilmore, 1924, , 102 So.
Johnston v. Smith 284 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
In commenting upon the sufficiency of the allegations of a petition drawn pursuant to the aforesaid codal provisions, the Supreme Court, in , 102 So.
Licoho Enterprises, Inc. v. Succession of Champagne 270 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Typical of these cases is the language in , 102 So.
Muller v. Michel Lecler Inc. 266 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
However, as stated by the Supreme Court in , 102 So.
Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons Partnership 264 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Guidry v. Hardy 254 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
Estelle J. Wilson Mortuary, Inc. v. Waker 244 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Powell v. Carter 233 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
In addition, Tapp quotes with approval the following found in , 102 So.
Sterling v. Jones 233 So. 2d 537 La. 1970
Bordelon v. X-L Finance Co. 227 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
He has also cited , 102 So.
Brown v. South Street Lumber Co. 195 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
ial discretion obtaining under the former jurisprudence ‘to afford relief against judgments irrespective of any issue of inattention or neglect, when the circumstances under which the judgment is rendered show the deprivation of the legal rights of the litigant who seeks relief, and when the enforcement of the judgment would be un-conscientious and inequitable.’ See, e. g., , 102 So.
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Martens 192 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Typical of these cases is the language in , 102 So.
St. Mary v. St. Mary 175 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Pontchartrain Park Homes, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Board 168 So. 2d 595 La. 1964
The Board urges that such a nullity plea can be entertained by the courts by virtue of the decisions in , 102 So.
Dare v. Myrick 168 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
Webb v. Carlton 165 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
The rule set forth in the , 102 So.
Tapp v. Guaranty Finance Company 158 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Pfeiffer v. Hemisphere International Corporation 153 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
State Ex Rel. Sunseri v. Thoman 154 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Lewis v. Bell 137 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Succession of Gilmore, [ ] 102 So.
Brooks v. Griggs Casing Crews, Inc. 136 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
For instance, in the , 102 So.
Hall v. Hall 127 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Succession of Menendez 115 So. 2d 829 La. 1959
280 , , a case involving a factual situation similar to the instant case, we cited approvingly the , 102 So.
Succession of Kippers 91 So. 2d 346 La. 1956
Vegas v. Cheramie 80 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson 79 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
In Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., , at page 780, we find: “This article has been liberally interpreted as appears by tm following quotation from , 102 So.
Accardo v. Dimiceli 76 So. 2d 521 La. 1954
On the other hand, Article 607 of the Code of Practice, which appertains to annulment on the merits for fraud or other ill practices, is of very broad scope and has been construed in , 102 So.
Alonso v. Bowers 64 So. 2d 443 La. 1953
Star Shoe Co. v. Hendricks 45 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Walsh v. Walsh 42 So. 2d 860 La. 1949
It is true that our courts have given Article 607 3 of the Code of Practice a very broad interpretation so as to afford relief “when the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscientious and inequitable.” , 102 So.
Vinson v. Picolo 15 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
This article has been liberally interpreted as appears by the following quotation from , 102 So.
Sandfield Oil Gas Co. v. Paul 7 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Succession of Dambly 186 So. 7 La. 1938
he Revised Civil Code provides that “Testaments are revocable at the will of the testator until his decease”, and the second paragraph of that article provides that: “The testator can not renounce this right of revocation nor obligate himself to exercise it only under certain words and restrictions, and if he does so, such declaration shall be considered as not written.” In , 102 So.
Henderson v. C. M. Thibodeaux Co. 177 So. 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Hanson v. Haynes 170 So. 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
The Louisiana Supreme Court stated, in , 102 So.
Engeran v. Consolidated Companies 147 So. 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Schneckenberger v. John Bonura & Co. 130 So. 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Warn v. Mexican Petroleum Corp. 6 La. App. 55 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1927

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by