DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rousseau v. Rousseau, 24 So. 2d 676.

16 citing documents.

  • Salassi v. Salassi 13 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Albert v. Albert 625 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Levatino, 506 So.2d at 861 ; , (1946).
  • Levatino v. Levatino 506 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    (1946); writ refused, 249 La.
  • Mahmud v. Mahmud 444 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Pfister v. Casso, 161 La.
  • Curtis v. Curtis 403 So. 2d 56 La. 1981
    Betz v. Riviere, supra; , (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La.
  • Phillips v. Nereaux 357 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    575 , (1956); , (1946); Succession of Farley, 205 La.
  • McGee v. Harris 333 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    2 Cir. 1966); , (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La.
  • Stevens v. Claiborne Company 305 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    art. 2238; Rousseau v. Rousseau, La.1946, , .
  • Succession of Milton 278 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Pfister v. Casso et al., 161 La.
  • Succession of Barr 219 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
    429 , (1962); , (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La.
  • Moore v. Moore 187 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    (1946) the Louisiana Supreme Court reenunciated the settled principle that "a husband who has been a party to an act of purchase in which it is declared that the price belonged to the wife in her paraphernal right, and that the property is to be such, cannot afterwards contradict it."
  • Monk v. Monk 144 So. 2d 384 La. 1962
    Pfister v. Casso, 161 La.
  • Monk v. Monk 134 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Willis v. Gordon 94 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    The petition does contain the recital that the plaintiff signed the deed without knowledge that the declaration was in same, , , where a similar allegation was involved, it was held: “It is incumbent on a person before signing an instrument to read it if he ' can read, and if not, to have it read to him and to listen attentively thereto.” Incidentally, in the Rousseau case, the rule of estoppel was affirmed by use of the f
  • Staunton v. Vinterella 67 So. 2d 550 La. 1953
    See also, , and Capillon v. Chambliss, 211 La.
  • Succession of Valdez 44 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1950
    Pfister v. Casso et al., 161 La.