Legal Opinion · Dissent
Succession of Marinoni
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided May 27, 1935No. 33013Published
1DissentOdom, Justice
On the question of res adjudicata I adhere to my original opinion. I thought when the case was before us originally and still think the exception of no cause of action should be sustained. I did not discuss that feature of the case because my associates thought it unnecessary.
It is stated in the majority opinion on rehearing that:
“Plaintiff does not pretend, on the above state of facts, that her mother was actually married to Ulisse Marinoni, Jr., and became his lawful wife. * * * Exceptors’ argument that no ceremonial marriage was performed is beside the question. * * * A putative marriage…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1891
- Patton v. Cities of Philadelphia & New OrleansSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1846
- Succession of NavarroSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1872
- Boykin v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1932
- Succession of BentonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.