Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, 53 So. 2d 210.

14 citing documents.

Gabriel Lewis, Jr. v. Succession of Matthew Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Lewis v. Succession of Johnson 900 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
the court said: We are also of the opinion that this title is a nullity for the reason that the original assessment under which lots 1 and 2 of Square 4837 were sold to the State for 1932 taxes was in the name of Albert Prampin, at al., whereas the public records, at that time, reflected tha
Pirello v. Triangle Enterprises, Inc. 411 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Verret v. Norwood 311 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Jackson v. Hanna 206 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
666 (2nd Cir.1937); Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc., La.App., (Orl.
Parquet v. Parquet 141 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, La.App., ; DiGiovanni v. Cortinas, 216 La.
Bierra v. Erwin 94 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
App., , to the effect that where the property was occupied corporeally by the descendants of the tax debtor, the preemption period was suspended during such possession.
Stevens v. Johnson 87 So. 2d 743 La. 1956
666 ; Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc., La.App., ; Ward v. South Coast Corporation, 198 La.
Robinson v. Mafrige 86 So. 2d 72 La. 1956
825 , ; Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc., La.App., ; and Splane v. Tubre, La.App., .
La Caze v. Boycher 80 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
See also Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, La.App., .
Carriere v. Dupre 72 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
477 , ; Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc., La.App., .
Lacaze v. Boycher 71 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
was sold under assessment No. 955, it would then be necessary that proof be submitted as to whether the 2 acres constituted a part of the 7 acres under assessment No. 1064 so as to make-certain or eliminate the possibility of partial payment of taxes prior to the sale under assessment No. 1064, which might or might not be the case under the doctrine of Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, La.App., ; Board of Commissioners for 5th Louisiana Levee District v. Concordia Land & Timber Co., 141 La
Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc. 65 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
This is an appeal from a judgment ordering the defendants in rule, Dixie Land Company, Inc. and Joseph M. Cortinas, to, reimburse the plaintiffs, Albert Prampin and Achille Prampin, the sum of $469.38, fully itemized in the judgment, representing costs incurred and paid by them in the prosecution of the suits entitled Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc., La.App., and Dixie Land Company, Inc. v. Blythe, La.App., , decided by this Court in 1951.
Dixie Land Co. v. Blythe 53 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
The facts, in connection with both cases are set forth in detail in Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc., La.App., , this day decided.