John Walter Boudreaux v. Paul Christopher Cummings
John Walter Boudreaux v. Paul Christopher Cummings, 167 So. 3d 559 (La. 2015).
Cited by
- Louis v. Hose and Julie H. Hose v. James Scott O'Connell and Whitney Elizabeth … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
- Melinda Katz v. Randy Creel La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
- 1026 Conti Holding, Llc v. 1025 Bienville, Llc La. 2023
- 1026 Conti Holding, LLC v. 1025 Bienville, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
- Gerald Wayne Mizell and Pamela Mizell Helton v. Bobby Joe Willis and James E. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
- Nola Bourbon, LLC v. Jorge Rodriguez-Franco and Lillian Benitez La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
- Deborah Marie Horaist v. Edward A. Pratt and Jean Johnson Pratt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
- Donovan Luke Fontenot v. Town of Mamou La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
- Fontenot v. Town of Mamou 262 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- Kendall Dixon v. City of Alexandria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
- Dixon v. City of Alexandria 222 So. 3d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
- Town of Arcadia v. Arcadia Chamber of Commerce 195 So. 3d 23 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Opinion text
CRICHTON, J., dissenting. I,Boudreaux unwaveringly declared he was never given permission to use the passageway, and he and his ancestors in title always used the passageway as if it *573 was their own. From an evidentiary standpoint, Boudreaux’s unambiguous declaration of his intent to possess as owner coupled with the legal presumption that he was possessing as owner caused the burden to shift to the defendant, Cummings, to marshal sufficient evidence to chip away, if not to erode, this presumption. This ultimately led to what I believe to be and, more importantly, what the trial court believed to be, a preponderance of evidence favoring Boudreaux. Cummings failed to present even a scintilla of evidence, instead engaging in mere argument, leaving the trial court with only one choice. Accordingly, based on this record, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the lower courts.