Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite California Co. v. Price, 74 So. 2d 1.

23 citing documents.

Heirs of John Beckwith LLC, Price Heirs LLC, James M. Foster Trust, Linda Price Ellzey, John v. Price, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
was not intended to ratify the absolutely null conveyances of navigable water bottoms to private individuals and should not be applied as it was in Price [ (1954)]; rather, we conclude that the legislature intended to do no more by its enactment than cure formal defects in patents that were essentially valid, in that they conveyed alienable property.
Board of Commissioners v. Estate of Smith 881 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The defendants/appellees, as does the district court, rely on Harris v. Estate of Fuller , (1954) in which the court clarified that the purpose of Act 62 was to “stabilize titles issued by the State over the signature of the Governor and Register of the State Land Office in cases wherein the State and other interested parties failed to contest the patents within a stated time.” The Orleans Leve
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith 609 So. 2d 809 La. 1992
[17] We simply gave the new statute weight in deciding that our interpretation of a , (1953), was wrong and thus overruled Price.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith 596 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
The repose statute of 1912 was ambiguous; in the [ California Co. v. ] Price [ , ] case, the majority of this Court expressly told the legislature that if it had found the Court's interpretation of the 1912 statute incorrect in the cases preceding Price, it could have corrected that interpretation.
Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. State Mineral Board 398 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(which was expressly overruled in Gulf Oil Corporation) nor Gulf Oil Corporation v. State Mineral Board, supra has expressly addressed the question of alienation.
Fleckinger v. Smith 319 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
it was said that the purpose of this prescription statute "was to stabilize titles issued by the State .
Gulf Oil Corporation v. State Mineral Board 317 So. 2d 576 La. 1975
See California Co., v. Price, , (1954).
Sinclair Oil & Gas Company v. Delacroix Corporation 285 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
Carter v. Moore 248 So. 2d 813 La. 1971
Carter v. Moore 234 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
(1954) (Louisiana Appeals, First Circuit, 1961), writs refused, 241 La.
Stevens v. State Mineral Board 233 So. 2d 542 La. 1970
47 , ; , (and the cases cited therein) and State v. Cenac et al., La.App., in which certiorari was denied, 241 La.
Stevens v. State Mineral Board 221 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
As we fully agree with the Trial Judge, we adopt, as our own, the Trial Judge’s “Reasons for Judgment”, to-wit: « * * * “Inasmuch as the defendants rely upon the ‘Oyster Statutes’, in part, in support of their position as hereafter discussed, , , upon which plaintiffs rely almost exclusively, it is necessary to consider what was said in that case in the context of the facts there involved.
Coastal States Gas Producing Co. v. State Mineral Bd. 199 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Humble Oil and Refining Co. v. State Mineral Board, 223 La.
State v. Scott 185 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
The Lower Court erred in holding that this cause is not governed by the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in California Company vs. Price, , (1954) 2.
St. Mary Parish Land Company v. State Mineral Bd. 167 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
47 , ; Realty Operators v. State Mineral Board, supra; O'Brien v. State Mineral Board, supra; , ; and State v. Cenac, La.App., (Cert.
Lewis v. State 156 So. 2d 431 La. 1963
See also California Co. v. Price, et al., , and Realty Operators v. State Mineral Board, 202 La.
King v. BOARD OF COM'RS FOR ATCHAFALAYA BASIN L. DIST. 148 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
This distinction is made clear with specific reference to the 1921 , (see syllabi 6, 7).
D'Albora v. Garcia 144 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
State v. Richardson, 140 La.
State v. Cenac 132 So. 2d 928 La. 1961
This is particularly true in the instant case since a , .
State v. Cenac 132 So. 2d 928 La. 1961
State v. Cenac 132 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Olin Gas Transmission Corporation v. Harrison 132 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
it is immaterial whether the bottoms in question be navigable or non-navigable waters if validly patented prior to the Constitutional prohibition of 1921 and no legal action has been filed within the time as set forth in Act 62 of 1912, however, we thought it important to determine the question as to na
California Company v. Price 99 So. 2d 743 La. 1958