DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lee v. Jones, 69 So. 2d 26.

32 citing documents.

  • C.S. Gaidry, Inc., and Schwing Management, LLC v. Low Land Construction Company, Inc., XYZ Insurance Company and Harry … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • Justiss Oil Company, Inc. v. Leon Hanson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    See also Hooper v. Hooper, 06-825 (La.App.
  • JUSTISS OIL CO., INC. v. Hanson 996 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    (1953); See also Hooper v. Hooper, 06-825 (La.App.
  • Edward W. Hooper, Jr. v. Richard Peerless Hooper Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 1971) (-38, (1953)).
  • Hooper v. Hooper 941 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir.1971) (-38 , (1953)).
  • In Re Succession of Moore 737 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    art. 3659; , (1953), and citations therein; (La.App.
  • Fleniken v. Allbritton 566 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    art. 3659; , (1953), and citations therein; (La.App.
  • Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Streetman 484 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    (1953) one heir was attempting to assert the 30 years liberative prescription of La.C.C.
  • Headrick v. Lee 471 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    207 , (1955); , (1953); Franks Petroleum, Inc. v. Babineaux, supra; Givens v. Givens, supra.
  • Boase v. Edmonson 471 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Towles v. Heirs of Morrison 428 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Succession of Book 426 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    103 , (1951), , (1953), (La.App.
  • Hawthorne v. Succession of Hawthorne 419 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    708 , (1937); , (1953); (La.App.
  • Minton v. Whitworth 393 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Articles 3499, 3500, 3548, Civil Code; , (1953); (La.App.
  • Dunham v. Nixon 371 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    207 , (1955); , (1953); British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi, supra; (La.App.
  • Givens v. Givens 273 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    207 , (1955); , (1953); British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi, supra
  • Thompson v. Frymire 255 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Southeastern Public Service Co. v. Barras 246 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1953), as follows: “The jurisprudence is well settled that, as a general rule, owners in indivisión cannot acquire title by prescription against each other.
  • Succession of Campbell 243 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    (1953); Sun Oil Company v. Tarver, supra; (La.App.
  • Trahan v. Broussard 206 So. 2d 82 La. 1968
    54 , ; Labarre v. Rateau, supra; , , holding that Article 3548 is merely an affirmance of Article 3499 of the Civil Code, by which the ownership of immovable property is acquired through thirty years adverse possession, are consonant with the public policy of the State that land titles shall remain stable so that property will always be t
  • Continental Oil Company v. Arceneaux 183 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Naquin, La.App.
  • Kinney v. Waddell 171 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    the Supreme Court did indeed flatly Rold, expressly overruling decisions to the ■contrary, that a minor heir of a decedent is deemed to accept that decedent’s succession by virtue of the code provisions in question.
  • Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Naquin 167 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    and British American Oil Company v. Griggaffi, La.App., .
  • Caire v. Sullivan 162 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and MacHinery Company 158 So. 2d 179 La. 1963
    569 , ; , ; Succession of Seals, 243 La.
  • Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Boudoin 154 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • Succession of Seals 150 So. 2d 13 La. 1963
    On the other hand the defendants did nothing of a positive nature.” , (1953), that the possession of a coheir, holding property in indivisión with his brothers and sisters, is to be viewed as precarious, not as owner of the whole, but as inuring to the benefit of his co-owners, and in order for one coheir to prescribe against the other, his possession must be clearly hosti
  • Watkins v. Zeigler 147 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    The rule, , , is that the possession of a coheir holding property in indivision with his brothers and sisters is to be viewed as precarious; that the possession of a co-owner, or of an heir, holding property in indivision is to be viewed as precarious—not as owner of the whole but for the benefit of his co-owner
  • Succession of Seals 142 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    The rule is, , (1953), that the possession of a coheir, holding property in indivisión with his brothers and sisters, is to be viewed as precarious, not as owner of the whole, but as inuring to the benefit of his co-owners, and in order for one coheir to prescribe against the other, his possession must be clearly hosti
  • British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi 135 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Succession of Lapene 96 So. 2d 321 La. 1957
    413 ] * * * either by conveyances from the succession representatives or heirs or by an acquired prescription, cannot *145 plead the prescription provided for in Article 1030 as the faculty lost by the heir, who fails to accept within thirty years, can only be availed of by the succession or those claiming through it * * * » , , when we stated: “The prescription mentioned in the above article [1030] is that of thirty years.
  • Alba v. Smith 81 So. 2d 863 La. 1955