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 Yeates, 35 So. 2d 210.

25 citing documents.

  • Brossette v. Clofort 481 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Succession of Lyons 452 So. 2d 1161 La. 1984
  • Succession of Riggio 405 So. 2d 513 La. 1981
    59 , (1950), (on rehearing 1951); , 35 So.2d *516 210 (1948)), then at least to show that it was executed during a lucid interval.
  • Estate of Richard v. Richard 321 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Taylor v. Spencer 225 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    234 , (1952); , (1948); Creech v. Errington, 207 La.
  • Hughes v. Chrysler Corp. 216 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    1032 , ; , ; Bates v. Blitz, 205 La.
  • Crain v. Crain 175 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Memleb v. Allstate Insurance Co. 163 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Under the circumstances, we believe it appropriate to apply the presumption that the testimony of the father and sister would have been unfavorable to defendant; , (1948); Vaughan v. Dowling, 243 La.
  • Monk v. Monk 144 So. 2d 384 La. 1962
    498 , , ; Olivier’s Minor Children v. Olivier, 215 La.
  • Succession of Delaune 138 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Malveaux v. Buller 135 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    In the , , Chief Justice Fournet as organ for the Supreme Court stated: "We think particularly applicable here the rule enunciated in the case of Bates v. Blitz, 205 La.
  • Pilcher v. Standard Accident & Insurance Co. 122 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    536, 537 , ; , ; Pearlstine v. Mattis, 223 La.
  • Martin v. T. L. James & Co. 112 So. 2d 86 La. 1959
    536 , ; , , and numerous authorities cited therein.
  • Clevy v. O'MEARA 108 So. 2d 538 La. 1959
    412 , ; , ; Bates v. Blitz, 205 La.
  • Prince v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 106 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    536 , ; , ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La.
  • Sollberger v. Walcott 101 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    412 , , , , Bates v. Blitz, 205 La.
  • Camus v. Camus 91 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    260 , ; , ; Cusimano v. Ferrara, 170 La.
  • Melancon v. Texas Company 89 So. 2d 135 La. 1956
    536 , ; , ; Olivier’s Minor Children v. Olivier, 215 La.
  • Byrd v. Byrd 88 So. 2d 214 La. 1956
    “Therefore, under the well settled jurisprudence, the instrument attacked in this case is radically null and of no force and effect.” , and Almond v. Adams, 221 La.
  • Harper v. Rosenblath 79 So. 2d 863 La. 1955
  • Succession of Prejean 71 So. 2d 328 La. 1954
    This .same contention, of..undue *926 influence was held to be without merit in the case of the , , wherein this Court said: “The contention that the will was executed under duress and undue influence exerted on the part of its pro!
  • Stipe v. Simon 66 So. 2d 330 La. 1953
  • Ohlhausen v. Sternberg Dredging Co. 53 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    In , , the Supreme Court reiterated a rule which has become well established in our jurisprudence: “that a person failing to call available witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge of facts that are essential to the proof of the case, or to produce more explicit, direct, and satisfactory concrete evidenc
  • Fried v. Bradley 52 So. 2d 247 La. 1951
    536 , , and authorities therein cited; , .
  • Olivier's Minor Children v. Olivier 40 So. 2d 803 La. 1949
    2d 816 ; , , and the authorities therein cited.