DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Brock, 200 So. 342.

13 citing documents.

  • Cason v. Cason 564 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Succession of Land, 212 La.
  • Succession of McVay v. McVay 476 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Succession of Land, 212 La.
  • Gregory v. Gregory 223 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
  • Bailey v. Alice C. Plantation & Refinery Inc. 152 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    167, 170 (La.App.1940); ; 159 (La.App.1950); (La.App.
  • Jefferson v. Jefferson 145 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    See also Smith v. Brock, La.App., ; Bland v. Coker, La.App., ; Casente v. Lloyd, La.App., .” In the instant case the stated grounds for the exception is “That plaintiff has not been appointed natural tutrix for the minor and has no capacity to bring this suit.” The argument is that under L.S.A.C.C.P.
  • Fleury v. Fleury 131 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    Smith v. Brock, La.App., .
  • Mitchell v. First National Life Insurance 91 So. 2d 788 La. 1956
    See also Smith v. Brock, La.App., ; Hand v. Coker, La.App., ; Casente v. Lloyd, La.App., .” In support of her contention that she herself had a right to institute this suit and stand in judgment, appellant cites the case of State ex rel.
  • Guilbeau v. Guilbeau 71 So. 2d 129 La. 1954
    App., .” In the very recent case of Succession of Schnitter, 220 La.
  • Casente v. Lloyd 68 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    art. 2404; Delpido v. Colony, La.App., ; McDaniels v. Doll, La.App., ; Hand v. Coker, La.App., ; Anderson v. Edmondson, La.App., ; Smith v. Brock, La.App., ; Riche v. Ascension Parish School Board, La.App., 200 So.
  • Betz v. Riviere 29 So. 2d 465 La. 1947
    *62 ment, he signed and became liable on mortgages affecting this supposedly separate property, and also for the additional reason that the commingling of her separate funds with her salary and that of her husband and the revenues from the properties in her separate bank account worked such a metamorphosis that it converted all of these funds into community funds, citing Smith v. Brock, La.App., and Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Crigler, La.App., , as authority for this proposition.
  • Capillon v. Chambliss 29 So. 2d 171 La. 1946
    103 , in which a petition for review was denied on August 5, 1938; Smith v. Brock et al., La.App., .” In this case the property in contest was bought originally by the wife, Daisy Green Capillon, on May 27, 1937, as her separate property and with her separate funds under her exclusive administration and control, and was therefore her separate property.
  • Succession of Farley 18 So. 2d 586 La. 1944
    103 , in which a petition for review was denied on August 5, 1938; Smith v. Brock et al., La.App., .
  • Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Crigler 12 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1942
    Smith v. Brock et al., La.App., , and cases cited therein.