Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pfister v. Casso, 109 So. 770.
- Mahmud v. Mahmud 444 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
- Curtis v. Curtis 403 So. 2d 56 La. 1981
- McGee v. Harris 333 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
- Succession of Milton 278 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
- Succession of Barr 219 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
- Moore v. Moore 187 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
- Monk v. Monk 144 So. 2d 384 La. 1962
- Willis v. Gordon 94 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
-
Succession of Steinberg
76 So. 2d 744
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
127 ; Pfister v. Casso, 1926, , 109 So.
- Bierhorst v. Kelly 74 So. 2d 168 La. 1954
- Succession of Valdez 44 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1950
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Rednour 44 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
- Rousseau v. Rousseau 24 So. 2d 676 La. 1946
-
Dugas v. Powell
21 So. 2d 366
La. 1945
1023 ; Pfister v. Casso et al., 1926, , 109 So.
- Brown v. Furlong 117 So. 583 La. 1928
-
Succession of Butler
117 So. 127
La. 1928
s clearly within the provisions of article 77 of the Civil Code, which declares that: “In case a succession shall be opened in favor of a person whose existence is not known, such inheritance shall devolve exclusively on those who would have had a concurrent right with him to the estate, or on those on whom the inheritance should have devolved if such person had not existed.” , 109 So.