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

  1. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1891
  2. Patton v. Cities of Philadelphia & New OrleansSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1846
  3. Succession of NavarroSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1872
  4. Boykin v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1932
  5. Succession of BentonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API