DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Knapp v. Jefferson-Plaquemines Drainage Dist., 68 So. 2d 774.

30 citing documents.

  • Duncan Oil, Inc. v. the Louisiana State Mineral and Energy Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    dence of this state is well settled and established that “if a description of the property intended to be assessed or sold is so indefinite and uncertain as to be defective, resort may be had to evidence outside the assessment roll or tax deed to identify the property, provided such evidence establishes unmistakably the identity of the property.” (1953).4 3 At the time of the adjudication, La.Const.
  • Duncan Oil, Inc. v. State Mineral & Energy Board 216 So. 3d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    sprudence of this state is well settled and established that “if a description of the property intended to be assessed or sold is so indefinite and uncertain as to be defective, resort may be had to evidence outside the assessment roll or tax deed to identify the property, provided such evidence establishes unmistakably the identity of the property.” , (1953).
  • Webb v. State Department of Natural Resources 194 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • Deer Enterprises, LLC v. Parish Council of Washington Parish 56 So. 3d 936 La. 2011
    General laws are those that “operate equally and uniformly upon all persons brought within the relations and circumstances for which they provide or that operate equally upon all persons of a designated class founded upon a reasonable and proper classification.” ( , (1953)).
  • Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n v. State ex rel. Edwards 653 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    General laws have been defined as “those that operate equally and uniformly upon all persons brought within the relations and circumstances for which they provide, or that operate equally upon all persons of a designated class founded upon a reasonable and proper classification.” , (1953).
  • Polk v. Edwards 626 So. 2d 1128 La. 1993
    (1953); Richardson & Bass v. Board of Levee Comm'rs, 231 La.
  • CONCERNED BUS. & PROP. OWN. OF DeSOTO, INC. v. DeSOTO PARISH SCH. BD. 528 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    [5] Defendants contend that these special provisions for the noted parishes are not special and local laws, , (1953); State ex rel Grosch v. City of New Orleans, 211 La.
  • Florida v. Roscoe 479 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • City of New Orleans v. Treen 421 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Hubbs v. Canova 401 So. 2d 962 La. 1981
  • Meares v. Pioneer Production Corp. 382 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Davenport v. Hardy 349 So. 2d 858 La. 1977
    Miller v. Henderson, La., (1976); Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Vial, La., (1975); , (1953); Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilots Commissioners, 209 La.
  • Sapir v. Hardy 349 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
  • Martin v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist. 349 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    (1953); Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 40.02 (4th ed. 1973).
  • State ex rel. Jefferson Parish School Board v. City Park Improvement Ass'n 345 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1953); Benedict v. City of New Orleans, 115 La.
  • State v. French Market Corporation 334 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    the Supreme Court discussed at length the distinction between local or special laws as opposed to public or general laws.
  • TEACHERS'RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF LOUISIANA v. Vial 317 So. 2d 179 La. 1975
    [13] E. g., , (1953); State v. Clement, 188 La.
  • Nomey v. State 315 So. 2d 709 La. 1975
    (1953), the Court held that a statute ratifying the title of the particular drainage district to certain property illegally purchased at tax sale was not a local or special act.
  • Succession of Leopold Welsch v. Carmadelle 264 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1972
    3 In this connection, , (1953); Choate v. O’Brien, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Baudy 252 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Placid Oil Co. v. Young 246 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • White v. Phillips Petroleum Company 232 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
  • City of Natchitoches v. State 221 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
  • Buras v. Orleans Parish Democratic Executive Committee 177 So. 2d 576 La. 1965
  • Harrison v. Moody 178 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Van Norden v. Martin 149 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    679 , , 68 So, 2d 774, wherein the Court held that errors as serious as these are not cured by the peremptive prescription.
  • Mills v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. 129 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The applicable law is concisely set forth in Knapp v. Jefferson, Plaquemines Drainage Dist., , , in which the Court held: “In the jurisprudence of this state it is well settled and established that, where a tax sale is made under an assessment in the name of the owner and an error is made in the description of the land intended to be assessed, the tax sale under such assessment is valid if
  • Hamilton v. Cortinas 110 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1959
    the Supreme Court was concerned with an uncertain description and said: “In the jurisprudence of this state it is well settled and established that, where a tax sale is made under an assessment in the name of the owner and an error is made in the description of the land intended to be assessed, t
  • Richardson & Bass v. Board of Levee Commissioners 91 So. 2d 353 La. 1956
  • Cobbs v. Jackson 85 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    wherein the validity of a tax sale was questioned as to the adequacy and sufficiency of the description, wherein the property was simply described as “ ‘A certain tract of land situated on the right bank of the Mississippi River, and .designated as 768.16/100 acres.