Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Pipitone, 15 So. 2d 801.

21 citing documents.

Succession of Miriam Mandel Sklar La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2026
Given the ready liquidity of these paintings, we cannot say Argent is breaching its fiduciary duty by pursuing them first, before collecting, preserving, and managing the 5 So.
Succession of Dan "Chip" Chisholm, II La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
In Re Succession of Hollis 987 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Matthews v. Horrell 977 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
2 Cir. 8/23/00), ( , -804 (1943)).
In Re Succession of Boyter 766 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Succession of Taglialavore 500 So. 2d 393 La. 1987
writ denied, Succession of *396 Pipitone, , (1943); Comment, Powers of a Succession Representative, 27 Tul.L.R.
Succession of Shepherd 454 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Succession of Lewis 440 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
4th Cir.1974); , (1943).
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury v. BD. OF COM'RS FOR ATCHAFALAYA BASIN LEVEE DIST. 306 So. 2d 707 La. 1975
See: , (1943); Airey v. Tugwell, 197 La.
Middle Tennessee Council, Inc. v. Ford 274 So. 2d 173 La. 1973
Associated General Contractors of America v. Police Jury of Pointe Coupee Parish 225 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
MIDDLE TENNESSEE COUNCIL, INC. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA v. Ford 205 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
The Supreme Court, in the , , in interpreting the provisions of Act 290 of the Louisiana Legislature of 1938 (now C.C.P.
In re Administration of Money or Property Abandoned or of Unknown Ownership-Standard General Realty Co. 168 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Succession of Lustig 112 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1959
or of the said John Albion Saxton, * * * had no interest whatsoever in and to said succession proceedings, or any of the property or effects belonging thereto, and is, therefore, not legally concerned with any of the proceedings of said succession, and is in fact an intermeddler.’ ” [ ] We based that decision largely on prior decisions of the Supreme Court in , , and Succession of Henry, No. 40456 of the docket of the Supreme Court refusing a writ of mandamus.
State v. Verret 87 So. 2d 297 La. 1956
770 , ; , and Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corporation, 207 La.
Succession of Senkpiel 79 So. 2d 866 La. 1955
In the syllabus of , , we find the following correct statement: “The provision of 1938 act authorizing executor or administrator to seek authority for private sale of succession property whenever it shall appear to be to manifest advantage of succession, its creditors, or heirs, means whenever it shall appear to be to manif
Louisiana Board of Pharmacy v. Smith 76 So. 2d 722 La. 1954
This attack is answered we believe by the Supreme Court in , , where it is said that the Constitution, Art. Ill, Sec.
Succession of Saxton 72 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1954
That in such situation an .opposition should not be permitted, except by some one who is interested either as heir or creditor, is at least intim.ated by the Supreme Court in , , for there the Supreme Court noted that the petition and the opposition were submitted on a stipulation of facts .
Louisiana Board of Pharmacy v. Smith 65 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
This attack is answered we believe by the Supreme Court in , IS So.2d 801, 804, where it is said that the Constitution, Art. Ill, Sec.
City of New Orleans v. Board of Supervisors 43 So. 2d 237 La. 1949
It thus serves to prevent surprise in legislation.” In , , this court, referring to Section 16 of Article III of the constitution says that it “does not require that every change which an act of the Legislature may effect in other laws on the subject shall be expressed in detail in the title of the new act.
Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corp. 20 So. 2d 737 La. 1944
16 of Article III in the , 15 So.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by