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 Beattie, 112 So. 802.

20 citing documents.

  • In Re Succession of Gonzales 868 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    2 Cir. 5/8/02), ; , 112 So.
  • Miller v. Miller 817 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • In re the Succession of Dunlap 408 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    In the Killingsworth case, on rehearing, the Supreme Court stated: “In , 112 So.
  • Rittiner v. Sinclair 374 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Although our Supreme Court does readily invalidate testaments for failure to comply with express formal requirements, Succession of Roussel, La.1979, , its frequent act has been to "limit the rigid enforcement of the formalities required in the execution of wills only to those instances in which the law is palpably violated", Succession of Beattie, 1927, , 112 So.
  • Succession of Killingsworth 292 So. 2d 536 La. 1974
    *540 While we subscribe to this plausible principle as first enunciated in , 112 So.
  • Succession of Killingsworth 270 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Bernard v. Francez, supra, , 112 So.
  • Tuttle v. Schlater 270 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Bernard v. Francez, supra, , 112 So.
  • In re Whitehead 256 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    ‘It is the policy of our law to carry out the wishes of the deceased person and not to push the legal requirements in such cases to extremes and the tendency of our jurisprudence is to limit the rigid enforcement of the formalities required as to the execution of wills only to those instances in which the law is palpably violated.’ , 112 So.
  • Succession of Papa 192 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Succession of Mayer 144 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    st principally be endeavored to be ascertained; that dispositions must be understood in the sense in which they will be effective; that when from the terms used by the testator his intention cannot be ascertained, recourse must be had to "* * * all circumstances which may aid in the discovery of his intention."; etc. With reference to this point we quote from the opinion in , 112 So.
  • Succession of Tranchina 144 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    As was said in , 112 So.
  • Talton v. Todd 96 So. 2d 327 La. 1957
  • Stephens v. Adger 79 So. 2d 491 La. 1955
  • Watson v. Young 34 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    Such a case is , 112 So.
  • Succession of Tyler 188 So. 31 La. 1939
  • Soileau v. Ortego 180 So. 496 La. 1938
    But counsel for appellant argued that this court has repeatedly held, as stated in the case of , 112 So.
  • Succession of Patterson 175 So. 820 La. 1937
  • Succession of Purkert 167 So. 444 La. 1936
  • Ledet v. Succession of Ledet 124 So. 150 La. 1929
    834 , ; Succession of Damico, 150 La.
  • Bernard v. Francez 117 So. 565 La. 1928
    This court said in , 112 So.