Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 64 So. 2d 202.

15 citing documents.

J-W Operating Co. v. Olsen 130 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
(1953); Bradstreet v. Kinchen, 2008-0126 (La.App.
United Gas Pipeline Company v. Bellard 286 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
(1953); Union Oil Co. of Cal.
Marathon Ins. Co. v. Warner 244 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
Likewise, , (1952), it is evident the Supreme Court recognized this principle when it observed: "A review of the jurisprudence reveals that the Court has consistently applied the test of intent of the party against whom acknowledgment was pleaded in determining whether interruption of prescription has taken pl
Williams v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company 193 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
Presented with a , -209 (1952), the Supreme Court made this observation: "In the case of Achee v. Caillouet, 197 La.
Armour v. Smith 170 So. 2d 347 La. 1964
919 , ; , ; Barnsdall Oil Co. v. Succession of Miller, 224 La.
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Gaspard Motors, Inc. 147 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
136 , (waiver); , (estoppel); LSA-C.C.P.
Levy v. Bonfouca Hunting Club 136 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
97 , ; , ; Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La.
British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi 135 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Rube v. Pacific Insurance Company of New York 131 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
97 , ; Coco v. Nolin, La.App., ; , .
Roberts v. Cooper 127 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
which involved an interpretation of the effect of the identical pooling and unitization agreement which is involved under the facts of the instant case.
Viator v. Haynesville Mercantile Company 88 So. 2d 1 La. 1956
Also, , ; *141 Michel v. Efferson, 223 La.
Union Oil Company of California v. Touchet 86 So. 2d 50 La. 1956
Eaton v. Eaton 81 So. 2d 371 La. 1955
* * *” , and Parker v. Ohio Oil Company, 191 La.
Delta Refining Co. v. Bankhead 73 So. 2d 302 La. 1954
518 ].” , , we made the following pertinent statement : “One of the express requirements of the LSA-Civil Code is that the acknowledgment must be of the right of the person whose title the debtor or possessor prescribes.
Smith v. Holt 67 So. 2d 93 La. 1953