Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Juneau v. Laborde, 54 So. 2d 325.

19 citing documents.

Lacour v. Sanders 442 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Plaintiff's contention is based upon Juneau vs. Laborde [ ], (1951) (3rd Cir., 1973) .
Attaway v. Culpepper 386 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
339 , (1960); , (1951)."
Bd. of Com'rs. Etc. v. Hunter Foundation 354 So. 2d 156 La. 1977
493 , (1952); , (1951); Louisiana Truck & Orange Land Co. v. Page, 199 La.
Richmond v. Zapata Development Corp. 350 So. 2d 875 La. 1977
In its opinion the appellate court, , (1951), stated our jurisprudence holds that, generally a buyer is not obliged to examine title to immovable property, but where certain facts known to him constitute a warning that further inquiry is needed, and such facts are sufficient to excite inquiry, a duty devolves upon him to investigate his ven
Board of Commissioners v. S. D. Hunter Foundation 342 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1951); Bishop Homes, (La.App.
Collins v. Slocum 317 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
175 , (1955); , (1951); (La.App.
Oliver v. Milliken & Farwell, Inc. 290 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
900 (1912); Dinwiddie v. Cos [La.App.], ; , ; Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., Inc., 228 La.
Thibodeaux v. Quebodeaux 282 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Board of Com'rs, Lafourche Basin Levee Dist. v. Elmer 268 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
(1951) the Supreme Court stated: "With the information that he possessed, which was certainly sufficient to excite inquiry, a duty devolved upon him to investigate the title before purchasing."
Savoia v. Capello 119 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Bel v. Manuel 99 So. 2d 58 La. 1958
Callahan v. Authement 99 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Another case involving a , , in which the Court stated: "Defendant's plea of estoppel, reurged here, is also without merit.
La Fleur v. Fontenot 93 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
the court stated: "However, it being true that defendant was informed (contrary to his testimony) by Dewey Dauzat of the defectiveness of the title, and further in view of his close acquaintanceship and friendship with the Juneau family and of the fact that he knew positively of Mrs. Juneau's dea
Distinguished Taylor v. General Gas Corp. 87 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
103 , , .” (Emphasis supplied ) The authorities cited by defendant in support of this plea are inapposite, being clearly distinguishable on the facts.
Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co. 81 So. 2d 852 La. 1955
900 ; Dinwiddie v. Cox, La.App., , certiorari refused June 29, 1942; see, also, , ; Harrill v. Pitts, 194 La.
Juneau v. Laborde 82 So. 2d 693 La. 1955
In two previous suits between the same parties, it was decreed that plaintiffs owned a e%40 interest in the land, , , and that defendant’s warrantor and predecessor in title, Joseph L. Escude, should accordingly reimburse to him 6Vuo of the purchase price, see 224 La.
Juneau v. Laborde 70 So. 2d 451 La. 1953
Hicks v. Hughes 65 So. 2d 603 La. 1953
and authorities therein cited.
Bishop v. Copeland 62 So. 2d 486 La. 1952