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 Farley, 18 So. 2d 586.

21 citing documents.

  • Succession of Tucker v. Poche 449 So. 2d 1020 La. 1984
  • Sabine Production Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust 432 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    See, e.g., Capillon v. Chambliss, supra; , (1944); Mayre v. Pierson, supra; (La.
  • Phillips v. Nereaux 357 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    428 , (1946); , (1944); American Surety Co. of New York v. Noble & Salter, 196 La.
  • Primeaux v. Libersat 307 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    NOTES [1] , (1944); Krokroskia v. Martin, supra.
  • Hollier v. Fontenot 216 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    and many decisions cited therein; Daggett, pp. 34-35; Huie, at 26 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Locantro v. Petrie 144 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    623 .” Without any attempt to cite all the cases on the subject, the following also support the doctrine here under discussion: , ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La.
  • Southwest Natural Production Company v. Anderson 118 So. 2d 897 La. 1960
    37 ; , ; Betz v. Riviere, 211 La.
  • Bagala v. Bagala 110 So. 2d 526 La. 1959
    and Capillon v. Chambliss, 211 La.
  • Ruffino v. Hunt 99 So. 2d 34 La. 1958
    and Capillon v. Chambliss, 211 La.
  • Joseph v. Travis 99 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    131 ; , ; Guilbeau v. Guilbeau, 224 La.
  • Smith v. Smith 89 So. 2d 55 La. 1956
    Houghton v. Hall, supra; , ; Betz v. Riviere, 211 La.
  • Prince v. Hopson 89 So. 2d 128 La. 1956
    37 ; , ; Betz v. Riviere, 211 La.
  • Guilbeau v. Guilbeau 71 So. 2d 129 La. 1954
    The above rule is repeated and ratified in the , , as follows: “The testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Koenig Farley was not given for the purpose of establishing or creating a title to real estate.
  • Succession of Franek 70 So. 2d 670 La. 1954
    the property is bought with separate funds and as her separate and paraphernal property, the wife may overcome with presumption that the property is community at any time after-wards by showing, even by parol evidence, if it be true, that the purchase was made with her separate and paraphernal funds under her separate control and as her separate and paraphernal property.” In , , the Court said: “ * * * If she had paid her share of the purchase price with her separate or paraphernal funds, under
  • Staunton v. Vinterella 67 So. 2d 550 La. 1953
    and authorities cited therein.
  • Krokroskia v. Martin 61 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1952
    and the cases cited therein.
  • Williams v. Williams 41 So. 2d 736 La. 1949
    *847 972, , and the authorities therein cited.
  • Slaton v. King 30 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Capillon v. Chambliss 29 So. 2d 171 La. 1946
  • Rousseau v. Rousseau 24 So. 2d 676 La. 1946
  • Baker v. Baker 21 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945