Succession of Hollier
Also decided on this docket: La., February 14, 1964 160 So. 2d 231
Succession of Hollier, 171 So. 2d 656 (La. 1965).
The holding in the court’s own words
We conclude that it correctly and clearly treated all issues of this case, and that there is no need for repetition.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Barrow v. Barrow 669 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
- Downs v. Downs 410 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
- Guilott v. Guilott 361 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
- Succession of Guercio 359 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
- Nelson v. Nelson 311 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
- Blalock v. Blalock 259 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
- Hollier v. Fontenot 216 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
- Hollier v. Fontenot 199 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Succession of Smith 175 So. 2d 269 La. 1965
- Succession of Ridley 175 So. 2d 269 La. 1965
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Succession of Hollier 245 La. 648
- Succession of Hollier 158 So. 2d 351
- Peters v. Klein 161 La. 664
- Kittredge v. Grau 158 La. 154
Opinion text
HAMLIN, Justice. In the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction (Art. VII, Sec. 11, LSA-Const. of 1921), we directed certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, in order that we might review its judgment which affirmed a judgment of the trial court decreeing (a) that Item 141 1 of the inventory taken in the Succession of Edese Hollier belongs to the community of acquets and gains which existed between the decedent, Edese Hollier, and the plaintiff in opposition, Dea Aucoin Hollier, and (b) that the notary who took the inventory reclassify Item 141 of the inventory as community property instead of separate property of the decedent. 245 La. 648 , 160 So.2d 231 , La.App., 158 So.2d 351 . The principal issue presented for determination is whether the classification of the partnership ownership interest involved — as distinguished from the partnership profits— was properly classified as separate property of the deceased Edese Hollier, or whether same fell into and belongs to the deceased’s second community. We have carefully reviewed the record and have thoroughly studied the findings of the Court of Appeal set forth in its opinion. We conclude that it correctly and clearly treated all issues of this case, and that there is no need for repetition. We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reported at 158 So.2d 351 , as the opinion of this Court. 2 *388 For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, is affirmed. The costs of this Court to be borne by relators. SANDERS and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. . “ITEM 141. A certain undivided interest, say, a 20% interest in and to the partnership of E. Hollier & Sons, which partnership is domiciled at 204 Northwest Railroad Avenue in the Town of Ville Platte, Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. That, among the assets of said partnership is contained, but not limited to, the following real estate, . See, also Peters v. Klein, 161 La. 664 , 109 So. 349, 350 [1], citing Kittredge v. Grau, 158 La. 154 , 103 So. 723 . In Peters v. Klein, the author of the instant opinion was one of the attorneys for Michael D. Klein.