DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Juneau v. Laborde, 82 So. 2d 693.

45 citing documents.

  • Terence St. Germain v. Lesley Simmons St. Germain La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    (1955) (footnotes omitted), the Supreme Court addressed the rights of co-owners:8 8 In Juneau, 82 So.2d at 696 n.1, the court noted that the plaintiffs had never sought occupancy of any part of the premises nor had been denied the right of occupancy.
  • The Succession of Linda Hack Pellette La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • Faubourg Saint Charles, LLC v. Faubourg Saint Charles Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. 265 So. 3d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1958), and Juneau v. Laborde , , (La.
  • Jonathan Kendrick v. Ruthie Paul Kendrick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    10/21/97), So.2d 693 (La.1955).”) Notwithstanding the application of La.R.S.
  • Kendrick v. Kendrick 136 So. 3d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See McCarroll v. McCarroll, 96-2700 (La.10/21/97), ; , ”) Notwithstanding the application of La.
  • Succession of Deal 129 So. 3d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    ( , (1955); 3 Moreira v. Schwan, 113 La.
  • Alexander v. Dunn 15 So. 3d 302 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • Explained Bruscato v. Oswalt 975 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    : In determining the amount due and recoverable by a co-owner out of possession from his co-owner in possession, a clear distinction should be drawn between the personal occupancy, use and enjoyment of property by the possessor and the rents and revenues derived by him therefrom, either from a
  • Matthews v. Horrell 977 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    (1955), the Second Circuit stated, "the co-owner *76 who takes possession of the common property does not have to account to his coproprietor, because [t]he right of occupancy is vested in him by virtue of his ownership."
  • Sequeira v. Sequeira 888 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    [6] McCarroll v. McCarroll, 96-2700 (La.10/21/97), , , also Lupberger v. Lupberger, 00-2571 (La.App.
  • Diane M. Sheridon, Born Richard v. Jonathan Sheridon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The supreme court concluded in McCarroll: Under the principles enunciated in Juneau [v. Laborde, So.2d 693 (La.1955)], a co-owner in exclusive possession may be liable for rent, but only beginning on the date another co-owner has demanded occupancy and has been refused.
  • Sheridon v. Sheridon 867 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The supreme court concluded in McCarroll : Under the principles enunciated in Juneau [ v. Laborde, , ], a co-owner in exclusive possession may be liable for rent, but only beginning on the date another co-owner has demanded occupancy and has been refused.
  • State of Louisiana v. Chet K. Whatley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Whatley 858 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Cahill v. Kerins 784 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    See McCarroll v. McCarroll, 96-2700 (La.10/21/97)
  • Munson v. Munson 772 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • McCarroll v. McCarroll 767 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    (1955), the court recognized that a co-owner in exclusive possession could be liable for rent, "but only beginning on the date another co-owner has demanded occupancy and has been refused.
  • Ball v. Ball 757 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Rabalais 759 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Ecroyd v. Ecroyd 713 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    [[Image here]] Under the principles enunciated in Juneau [v. Laborde, , ], a co-owner in exclusive possession may be liable for rent, but only beginning on the date another co-owner has demanded occupancy and has been refused.
  • McCarroll v. McCarroll 701 So. 2d 1280 La. 1997
    this Court stated: This claim cannot be sanctioned, for defendant was a co-owner of the property and was entitled, as such, to occupy it without becoming liable to plaintiffs for rent.
  • Ellwood Oil Co. v. Anderson 655 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Riddle v. Simmons 626 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Art. 798; , (1955); Succ.
  • Succession of Christophe v. Lotten 487 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    (1955) defendants contend that plaintiffs as co-owners do not have a cause of action for rent against a co-heir.
  • Cahn v. Cahn 468 So. 2d 1176 La. 1985
    (1955); Stewart v. Crump, 131 La.
  • Myer v. Pagan 439 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Degel v. Deffes 395 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Touchet v. Huval 391 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Martin v. Esponge 388 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    LSA-CC 494; , (1955), Moreira v. Schwan, 113 La.
  • Roy v. Union Bank 347 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Guilott v. Guilott 326 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • McVay v. McVay 318 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Collins v. Slocum 317 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Spencer v. Spencer 273 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Knoll v. Delta Development Company 218 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    A , (1955), where plaintiffs, as co-owners with defendant, sought to recover (1) a rental charge, based on defendant's occupancy of the jointly owned property, and (2) judgment for their proportionate part of the revenues which defendant received from the cultivation of cotton crops on the land.
  • Succession of Grubbs 182 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    (1955); Vance v. Sentell, 178 La.
  • Coon v. Miller 175 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    as follows: "* * * the co-owner who takes possession of the common property does not have to account to his coproprietor, because the right of occupancy is vested in him by virtue of his ownership.
  • LeBlanc v. Scurto 173 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    is inapplicable in the instant situation because that was a suit by a co-owner out of possession to recover rents and revenues from the co-owner in possession.
  • Arcemont v. Arcemont 162 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi, La.App., ; Wagner v. Wagner, La.App., .
  • Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and MacHinery Company 158 So. 2d 179 La. 1963
  • Sciambra v. Sciambra 153 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    the court said: "* * * In determining the amount due and recoverable by a co-owner out of possession from his co-owner in possession, a clear distinction should be drawn between the personal occupancy, use and enjoyment of property by the possessor and the rents and revenues derived by him therefrom
  • Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Boudoin 154 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi 135 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Brennan v. Wagner 134 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Chaney v. Whitney 107 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    and we quote a pertinent portion of that judgment: “ * * * In this suit, plaintiffs have included a demand for rent based on a charge against defendant for his occupancy of the premises, i. e., a month rental of 1% of the value of the improvements placed on the property by defendant in 1939.