DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Montegut, 29 So. 2d 583.

14 citing documents.

  • Succession of Brice 390 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    63 , ; , ; Miller v. Hirsch, 110 La.
  • In RE SUCCESSIONS OF JOHNSON v. Williams 387 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    (1947); Succession of Fertel, 208 La.
  • Matter of Succession of Jones 369 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1947); Succession of Fertel, 208 La.
  • Carter v. Succession of Carter 332 So. 2d 439 La. 1976
    (1947); Succession of Fertel, 208 La.
  • Succession of Stewart 301 So. 2d 872 La. 1974
    63 , (1948) and , (1947).
  • Succession of Killingsworth 292 So. 2d 536 La. 1974
    Article 1712 of the Civil Code; , (1947); Succession of Kamlade, 232 La.
  • Succession of Stewart 287 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    63 , ; , ; Miller v. Hirsch, 110 La.
  • Campbell v. Pickering 271 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Giroir v. Dumesnil 184 So. 2d 1 La. 1966
    63 , ; , ; Miller v. Kirsch, 110.
  • Giroir v. Dumesnil 172 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Niemann v. Seeling 133 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Succession of Montegut 47 So. 2d 898 La. 1949
    [1] This case, involving the construction of a will written in French by Amelie Montegut under date of September 4, 1933, has been before this Court previously; and a decision was rendered ( , , 588 ) remanding it "for the restricted purpose of permitting the parties litigant (both appellees and appellants) to introduce evidence in proof of any and all circumstances which may aid in the discovery of the intention of the testatrix with reference to the controverted provision * * *" of the will
  • Montegut v. St. Martin 47 So. 2d 898 La. 1949
    This case, involving the construction of a will written in French by Amelie Monte-gut under date of September 4, 1933, has been before this Court previously; and a decision was rendered ( , ) remanding it “for the restricted purpose of permitting the parties litigant (both appellees and appellants) to introduce evidence in proof of any and all circumstances which may aid in the discovery of the intention of the testatrix with reference to the controverted provision * * * ” of the will
  • Succession of Smart 36 So. 2d 639 La. 1948