Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ware v. Baucum, 59 So. 2d 182.

17 citing documents.

Louisiana Materials Co. v. Cronvich 249 So. 2d 123 La. 1971
Breaux v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 163 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
896 , ; , ; Billeaud Planters, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, 245 F.2d 14 (5th Cir., 1957); and Lilly v. Conservation Commissioner of Louisiana, 29 F.Supp.
Voisin v. Luke 142 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Under the former jurisprudence, , , the only possible issues determinable in the jactitory action (in the absence of defendant’s claim of ownership of the property in dispute) were the alleged possession of plaintiff and defendant’s purported slander.
Adam v. Johnson 133 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
See Ware v. Baucum, 1952, , .
Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. California Co. 132 So. 2d 845 La. 1961
Louisiana Canal Co. v. Leger 112 So. 2d 667 La. 1959
we said: “The object of the action is to protect possession, not to establish title; and the relief sought therein is that defendant be ordered to bring suit to establish his pretensions, pay damages for the slander, and that the plaintiff be quieted in his possession.
Tinsley v. Seismic Explorations, Inc. 111 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
408 ; Scheller v. Goode, La.App., ; , , and Reagan v. Murphy, 235 La.
Perkins v. Wimberly 107 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
258 , ; Bethley v. Cochrane, La.App.1955, ; Fourchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App.1956, ; Webre v. Jones, La.App.1957, ; Roux v. Attardo, La.App.1957, ; Cross v. Marquez, La.App.1957, ; Pierre v. Galloway, La.App.1957, ; Banks v.
Bascus v. City of Shreveport 98 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Lawton v. Anthony 92 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
911 , ; , ; Lenard v. Shell Oil Co., supra; International Paper Co. v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 202 La.
Baker v. Texas Co. 88 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
621 ], and Ware v. Ba[u]cum [ ], , I find it unnecessary to consider this evidence.
Stockstill v. Cotten 88 So. 2d 27 La. 1956
Of course, at the trial plaintiff, as above shown, will be required to prove the possession which he seeks to protect; however, in making the proof the evidence adduced on the hearing of the exception may be offered and introduced, , .
Perkins v. Long-Bell Petroleum Company 81 So. 2d 389 La. 1955
Dixon v. American Liberty Oil Company 77 So. 2d 533 La. 1954
Wilson v. California Co. 75 So. 2d 224 La. 1954
La Terre Co. v. Naquin 72 So. 2d 481 La. 1954
The latest decision by this Court on the subj ect, and the obj ect which the action is meant to accomplish, , , wherein the Court, speaking through Justice Hamiter, stated: “The object of the action is to protect possession, not to establish title; *219 and the relief sought therein is that defendant be ordered to bring suit to establish his pretentions, pay damages for the slander, and that the plaintiff
Clay v. Clay 59 So. 2d 180 La. 1952