Succession of Burrell
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Robichaux v. Huppenbauer (La. 1971)
- Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation (La. 1971)
- Hobson v. Walker (La. Ct. App. 1949)
- Myer v. Minard (La. Ct. App. 1945)
- Perrin v. Crescent City Stockyard & Slaughterhouse Co. (La. 1907)
- Winner v. Marion County Com'n (Ala. 1982)
- Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 1974)
- Johnson v. Nora (La. Ct. App. 1956)
- Haynes v. Smith (La. Ct. App. 1956)
- Galouye v. A. R. Blossman (La. Ct. App. 1947)
- Kentucky-Ohio Gas Co. v. Bowling (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1936)
- Meyer v. Kemper Ice Co. (La. 1934)
- Di Carlo v. Laundry & Dry Cleaning Service (La. 1933)
- Germann v. 557 Tire Co. (La. 1928)
- Morris v. Putsman (La. 1928)
- Monlezun v. Jahncke Dry-Docks, Inc. (La. 1927)
- Crump v. Carnahan (La. 1924)
- Petroleum Refining Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky. Ct. App. 1921)
- Orton v. Virginia Carolina Chemical Co. (La. 1918)
- Le Blanc v. Orleans Ice Mfg. Co. (La. 1908)
- Froelicher v. Southern Marine Works (La. 1908)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this case, the mother and tutrix having died, the undertutor asks that a family meeting be convoked to recommend a proper person for appointment as tutor, and that the maternal grandfather of the minor be excluded from said tutorship.
All three of the grounds for exclusion from tutorship prescribed by article 303, Civ. Code, are alleged against the grandfather, viz.: (1) Conduct notoriously bad; (2) incapacity to manage his own affairs; (3) neglect to have caused an inventory to be made of the property of the minor.
The property of the minor consists of some jewelry, worth about $200, of the existence of which, as belonging to the minor, the grandfather knew nothing. It is needless to say that failure to have caused an inventory to be made under these circumstances is not good ground for exclusion. The other allegations are not proved.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.