DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., 70 So. 2d 102.

17 citing documents.

  • Conoco, Inc. v. Halter-Calcasieu, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    James & Company, Inc. et al., So.2d 102, 106 (1953), quoting from Carollton [Carrollton] R. Company v. Winthrop, 5 La.Ann.
  • Conoco Inc. v. Halter-Calcasieu LLC 865 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    James & Company, Inc. et al., , (1953), quoting from Carollton [Carrollton] R. Company v. Winthrop, 5 La.Ann.
  • Meyers v. Denton 747 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    James & Company, Inc. et al., , (1953), quoting from Carollton [Carrollton] R. Company v. Winthrop, 5 La.Ann.
  • Detlic Farm & Timber Co. v. Board of Com'rs 368 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • McPherson v. Catahoula Parish Police Jury 358 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    “And if the road be so injured or inundated by the water, without being carried away, that it becomes impassable, the owner is obliged to give the public a passage on his lands, as near as possible to the public -road, without recompense therefor.” Plaintiffs-appellants rely on the cases of Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., , (1954), (La.App.
  • Warner v. Clarke 232 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
    Hebert v. T. L. James & Company, Inc. et al., , 70 So.
  • Tenneco, Inc. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union, Local 4-522 234 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    In Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., , (1953), the Supreme Court stated that “the servitude so imposed by the codal articles on property bordering a navigable stream was not intended to serve the public for any purpose other than that which is incident to the nature, navigable character, or use of the stream.” In Lyons v. Hinckley, 12 La.Ann
  • Parish of Jefferson v. Universal Fleeting Company 234 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    See also Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., , (1954); State v. Richardson, 140 La.
  • Grayson v. Commissioners of Bossier Levee District 229 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
    They were "distinguished" in Delaune, supra, but compared with the case of Hebert v. T. L. James & Company, , (1953) "where the court gave Article 665 of the Civil Code a restrictive interpretation when applied to a servitude for road purposes."
  • Gray v. State, Through Department of Highways 191 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    In Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., , , the intervenor Highway Department was ordered to replace earth taken from the yard of the plaintiff landowners and to restore their property to its condition prior to an illegal taking, where due to an error of law the intervenor Department and its contractor had without payment appropriated a servitu
  • Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Louisiana Department of Highways 142 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    The question, we believe, has been squarely passed upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., , .
  • Hornsby v. State Department of Highways 132 So. 2d 871 La. 1961
    v. T. L. James and Company, Inc. et al., , , is decisive of the present litigation, she maintaining that we held therein that the only servitude due under the quoted codal provisions is one intended to serve the public for a purpose incident to the navigable character or to the use of the bordering stream — not one for general road purposes
  • Peart v. State 125 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    24 ; Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., 1953, , ; Champagne v. Bourque, La.App.1959, .
  • Harwood Oil & Mining Company v. Black 124 So. 2d 764 La. 1960
    v. T. L. James & Co., Inc. et al., , 70 So.
  • Champagne v. Bourque 117 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1959
    48:491 could be held to apply, and we believe that such holding would be contrary to the case of Herbert v. T. L. James & Company, , , certainly the non-usage of said roadway for a period in excess of ten years would extinguish the servitude.
  • Delaune v. Board of Commissioners 87 So. 2d 749 La. 1956
    The view expressed in the Franklin ease is to be compared with that in the later case of Hebert v. T. L. James & Co., , , where the court gave Article 665 of the Civil Code a restrictive interpretation when applied to a servitude for road purposes.
  • Hebert v. TL James & Co. 72 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    The history and facts of this litigation are fully covered in our opinion, reported in , and that of the Supreme Court reversing our judgment in .