Rush v. Landers
Citations
- 107 La. 549
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. where immovable property in this State purports to have been sold by a husband to his wife for a certain sum of money, the title is invalid on its face, the apparent cons ¡deration’not being within the exceptions provided by C. C. 2446 as essential to the validity of a sale in such case, and the property is liable to seizure by the creditors of the husband.</p> <p>2. where property so situated is seized upon a claim against the husband, and the wife intervenes, setting up title, and the seizing creditor propounds to her interrogatories on facts and articles, her answers thereto are entitled to no greater effect, as against such creditor, than her testimony, or that of any other witness, given orally.</p> <p>3. Where the seizing creditor, in propounding such interrogatories, takes the initiative and attempts to show that the consideration of the putative sale was other than as stated, either in the intervenor’s title or in her intervention, and, thereafter, fails, in this court, to ask for any ruling upon his objection, made during the trial, to the introduction of parol evidence to show the real consideration of such sale, it will be presumed that the objection is abandoned.</p> <p>♦ , wnere the answers to such interrogatories show that property in another State had been conveyed by the husband to the wife for a particular consideration, arising under the laws of that State, this court will not assume, even though it should be made to appear that such consideration was inadequate, that a different consideration, testified to as moving in the matter of the conveyance of the Louisiana property, was, therefore, included and exhausted for the purposes of the conveyance in such other State.</p> <p>5. The validity of the conveyance of immovable property in Louisiana, and the capacity of a husband and wife to deal with each other with respect thereto is to be determined by the law of Louisiana.</p> <p>6. A sale of such property, between husband and w
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6) “does not provide authority for imposing any of the challenged conditions”
- holding that the FY 2017 notice, access, and compliance conditions violate separation of powers
- holding that § 10102(a)(6) is not a “stand-alone grant of authority to the Assistant Attorney General to attach any conditions to any grants” (quoting City of Chicago, 888 F.3d at 285)
- observing that documents “do not reflect that [DOJ] in any way considered whether jurisdictions’ adherence to the conditions would undermine trust and cooperation between local communities and government”
- “[Section] 1373[], in so far as it applies to states and localities, is facially unconstitutional under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment.”
- federal law prohibiting state and local governments from restricting their officers from communicating with immigration authorities not a preemption statute because it governed only government entities or officials
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.