DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jumonville Pipe & MacHinery Co. v. Federal Land Bank, 87 So. 2d 721.

18 citing documents.

  • Adobe Oil & Gas Corp. v. MacDonell 480 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    (1956); Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse, supra; (La.App.
  • Allied Chemical Corp. v. Despot 414 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    d within a unit or units portions of a tract as to which owners had failed to agree to pool their interests for development purposes, his act produced the same result as if the parties had formed a drilling unit by convention and for development purposes had reduced the servitude to that extent' (Emphasis Added) See also Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Co.
  • Continental Group, Inc. v. Allison 404 So. 2d 428 La. 1981
    869 , ], supra, and Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Co. v. Federal Land Bank [ , ], supra, were predicated, we concluded the articles of the Civil Code in Title IV, entitled "Of Predial Servitudes or Servitudes of Land", whenever applicable were controlling."
  • Armstrong v. RED RIVER, ATCHAFALAYA, ETC., LEVEE BD. 278 So. 2d 496 La. 1973
    [1] , (1956); Childs v. Washington, 229 La.
  • Exchange Oil & Gas Co. v. Foster 237 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    869 , and Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Co., Inc. v. Federal Land Bank of N. O., et al., , .
  • Barnwell, Inc. v. Carter 220 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    (1956); Le Blanc v. Haynesville Mercantile Co., 230 La.
  • Trunkline Gas Company v. Steen 187 So. 2d 720 La. 1966
    869 , (1956) and in Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Co., , (1956), decided three years later, this court- held that the creation of a forced unit including part only of a tract burdened with a servitude, effected a “reduction” thereof for development purposes, with the result: that prescription continued to accrue as to the portion of the servitude outside the
  • Mire v. Hawkins 186 So. 2d 591 La. 1966
    (1956) ; Le Blanc v. Haynesville Mercantile Co., 230 La.
  • Trunkline Gas Co. v. Steen 179 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    (1956) involved substantially the same facts as the Childs case.
  • Mire v. Hawkins 177 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    In the present instance, however, there was no obstacle to user by reason of a nondrilling order as to any portion of the 125-acre Mire tract outside of the unitized 61½ acres of Unit 11, Jumonville Pipe & , at 724 ; nor, even if (assuming arguendo) the unitization orders are considered as having divided the servitude, [5] was user by drilling forbidden on at *804 least some of the areas unitized for different periods respectively either by Order 307 (3 of the 45 unitized acres were not subj
  • Frey v. Miller 167 So. 2d 669 La. 1964
    869 , , and Jumonville Pipe & , (the former written by me), both involving mineral servitudes, are controlling in the instant case, which involves land — a portion of *845 which is included in a forced conservation pooling unit — that is impressed with a royalty interest only.
  • Frey v. Miller 165 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    869 , , and Jumonville Pipe & , .
  • Odom v. Union Producing Company 141 So. 2d 649 La. 1962
    869 , ; Jumonville Pipe & , ; Brown v. Mayfield, La.App., ; and, Richard v. Sohio Petroleum Company, 234 La.
  • Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse 117 So. 2d 575 La. 1960
    869 , and Jumonville Pipe & , .
  • Alexander v. Holt 116 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    2d 111 ; Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., Inc., v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, , .
  • Brown v. Mayfield 92 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
    Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., Inc., v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, 1956, , , presents a decision wherein the Supreme Court held that production from a well located in a pooled unit created by an integration order of the Commissioner of Conservation constituted production from all property within the unit, including property subject to the mineral servitude, and constituted use
  • White v. Frank B. Treat & Son, Inc. 89 So. 2d 883 La. 1956
    869 , ; Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., Inc., v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, , , and Boddie v. Drewett, 229 La.
  • Childs v. Washington 87 So. 2d 111 La. 1956
    See, also, Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Co., Inc., v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, , .