Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sun Oil Co. v. Tarver, 52 So. 2d 437.

22 citing documents.

Succession of Matthews 212 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4 , (1951); Breaux, 151 So.3d at 188 ; (La.App.
Samuel R. Breaux, II v. Cozy Cottages, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Breaux v. Cozy Cottages, LLC 151 So. 3d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Holmes v. LSU/EA Conway Medical Center 997 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), ; , (1951) (setting forth as the well-settled rule that a party relying upon interruption or suspension of prescription bears the burden of proof); White v. Davis, 169 La.
Perez v. Shook 703 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
3 Cir.1981) (collecting cases); , (1951).
Security National Partners v. Kothe 703 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Younger v. Marshall Industries, Inc., , (La.App.
Miley v. Consolidated Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 1 642 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Lima v. Schmidt 595 So. 2d 624 La. 1992
3rd Cir. 1981) (collecting cases); , (1951) (setting forth as well-settled rule that party relying upon interruption or suspension of prescription bears burden of proof).
Fleniken v. Allbritton 566 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Whitnell v. Menville 540 So. 2d 304 La. 1989
Succession of Book 426 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
(1951), Lee v. Jones, 224 La.
Succession of Ross 397 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
[1] The same reasoning dictates *832 that, because legitimate descendants omitted from a succession proceeding are allowed to assert their claims even more than 30 years after a judgment of possession in their grandfather's succession, Sun Oil Co. v. Tarver, 1951, , , plaintiff illegitimates can equally assert their claims a mere eight years after a judgment of possession in their father's succession.
Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 281 So. 2d 724 La. 1973
(1951); M. H. Nahigian, Inc. v. Haddad, 205 La.
Thompson v. Frymire 255 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
and Lee v. Jones, 224 La.
Succession of Campbell 243 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
This is ably discussed by Justice McCaleb, , (1951).
Dion v. Knap 230 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
( , (1951) * * * (Brief, pp. 7-8.
Kinney v. Waddell 171 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Succession of Seals 142 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Appellees’ final plea of thirty year libera-tive prescription rests upon article 1030, LSA-C.C., which declares : “The faculty of accepting or renouncing a succession becomes barred by the lapse of time required for the *634 longest prescription of the rights to im-movables.” , (1951), that Civil Code article 1030 should be interpreted literally and that it bars the right of the heir to accept or renounce a succession after thirty years of inaction, whether he be a legal or instituted heir, but
Delahoussaye v. Domingues Chevrolet, Inc. 137 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
455 ; Mayer v. Ford, La.App., ; , ; Kreppein v. Demarest, La.App., .
Mestayer v. Cities Service Development Company 136 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
See LSA-Civil Code Article 1030; , .
Succession of Lapene 96 So. 2d 321 La. 1957
to the effect that: “ * * * it seems manifest that a trespasser, or one holding land or other succession property without semblance of right or title, as in Generes v. Bowie Lumber Co. [ 143 La.
Lee v. Jones 69 So. 2d 26 La. 1953
The holding of our original opinion was that: The plea of prescription of thirty years was good with respect to the Succession of Martha Skinner, Sallie having been a major at the time of her mother’s death and never having accepted her succession, , , and that the plea of prescription of thirty years was not good with respect to the succession of her father, Tillman Skinner, because of the letter of the law, Article 977 of the LSA-Civil Code which reads: “No one can be compelled to accept a suc