DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sessum v. Hemperley, 96 So. 2d 832.

60 citing documents.

  • Mary O'neal v. Ronnie Newcomb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • O'Neal v. Newcomb 209 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Dudenhefer v. Meraux Land Development, L.L.C. 840 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    o conditions must concur: First, there must be a visible boundary, artificial or otherwise; second, there must be actual uninterrupted possession, either in person or through ancestors in title, for thirty years or more of the land extending beyond that described in the title and embraced within the visible bounds.’ (Emphasis added) *1245 citing, , (1957).
  • Rathborne v. Hale 667 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    In Gelpi v. Shall, supra, at 1016 , this Court succinctly stated the law relative to acquisitive prescription: " , (1957), and most recently reiterated by our Supreme Court in William T. Burton Industries, : `[W]here there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for thirty years or more and the defendant in a boundary action and his predecessors in title have, in add
  • Harmon v. Harmon 617 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Williamson v. Kelly 520 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Schexneider v. Villejoin 493 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Williams v. Baughman 477 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    The question is resolved by this Court’s , (1957) where this lucid statement of the law is found: “[Wjhere there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for thirty years or more and the defendant in a boundary action and his predecessors in title have, in addition to the land described in the title, actually possessed land extending to
  • Deshotel v. Lachney 465 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    App. 3rd Cir.1965); , (1957) *980 (dicta).
  • Brown v. Wood 451 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    646 , (1961); , (1957); Buckley v. Catlett, 203 La.
  • Kelley v. Stringer 422 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    1st Cir.1933); , (1957).
  • Sayes v. Tassin 419 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Travis v. Lake Superior Piling Co. 401 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Fruge v. Lyons 373 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    *227 444, (1957) where this lucid statement of the law is found: "[W]here there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for thirty years or more and the defendant in a boundary action and his predecessors in title have, in addition to the land described in the title, actually possessed land extending to that visible b
  • William T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Monk 372 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1957); William T. Burton Industries, (La.App.
  • Gelpi v. Shall 355 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    (1957), and most recently reiterated by our Supreme Court in William T. Burton Industries, (1977): "[W]here there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for thirty years or more and the defendant in a boundary action and his predecessors in title have, in additi
  • Brookshire v. Guidry 355 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    William T. Burton Industries, , (1957).
  • William T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Wellman 343 So. 2d 996 La. 1977
    (1957) where this lucid statement of the law is found: "[W]here there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for thirty years or more and the defendant in a boundary action and his predecessors in title have, in addition to the land described in the title, actually possessed land extending to
  • Fiorello v. Knecht 334 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Wellman 346 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    He relies largely on the above articles, , (1957); (La.App.
  • Prather v. Valien 327 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Trahan v. Frankland 317 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    (1957), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: "Under the provisions of LSA-C.C.
  • Huval v. Dupuis 302 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    App. 3 Cir. 1965), , (1957).
  • Oliver v. Milliken & Farwell, Inc. 290 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    843: 'Clearly, the now well-established rule, as a result of our codal provisions and the cited authorities, is that where there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for thirty years or more and the defendant in a boundary action and his predecessors in title have, in addition to the land
  • Carpenter v. Cobb 293 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    In comprehensively reviewing the law dealing with the establishment of boundary lines, the Supreme Court, [ 233 La.
  • Winch v. Veazey 282 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    (3rd Cir. 1965) we took the position that a formal survey was not necessary, it being sufficient under Article 853 to show an extrajudicial survey or the consent or active acquiescence of the adjacent landowners to a visible boundary line, , (1957).
  • Ratcliff v. Gordon 268 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    The court further said: “It is our firm conviction that the public interest requires that boundaries established for more than 30 years should not be disturbed; and we think the law so provides.” , (1957).
  • Dunn v. Masson 263 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Robertson v. Morgan, La.App., ; , ; Walters v. Rainey, La.App., ; Savoie v. Savoy, La.App., .
  • Savoie v. Savoy 262 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Walters v. Rainey, La.App., .
  • Johnson v. Horton 262 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1957), the Supreme Court discussed the prescription provided for under Article 852 thusly: “LSA-C.C.
  • Ledoux v. Waterbury 261 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    482 ; , ; Blanchard v. Monrose, 12 La.App.
  • Walters v. Rainey 260 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Article 852 , (1957) and its progeny.
  • Delatte v. Petit 252 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1957) the Supreme Court of this state set forth the criteria necessary for the successful reliance upon this article : “Clearly, the now well-established rule, as a result of our codal provisions and the cited authorities, is that where there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for thirty
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Kilchrist 225 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Harvey v. Havard 225 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Snellings v. Lutz 219 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
    (1957), and Article 852 of the Civil Code.
  • Monceret v. Jewell 222 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    discussed the thirty year prescription of LSA-C.C.
  • Motty v. Broussard 201 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Bergeron v. Overhultz 194 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Hinckley v. Francisco 189 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    So.2d 832 ; Porche v. Martin, La.App.
  • Branch v. Hinson 183 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    825 , , and (2) plaintiff is owner of the disputed property by virtue of thirty years acquisitive prescription as provided for in Articles 852 and 3499, LSA-C.C.
  • Ponder v. Fussell 180 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Porche v. Martin 177 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • LaCalle v. Chapman 174 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    With all due respect for Judge Ellis's reasoning, , (1957), although, as Judge Ellis says, the court's ruling there as to Article 853 was obiter dictum.
  • Cox v. White 160 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    quantity of land beyond that mentioned in his title, he will be permitted to retain it, and his neighbor, though he have a more ancient title, will only have a right to the excess; for if one can not prescribe against his own title, he can prescribe beyond his title or for more than it calls for, provided it be by thirty years possession.” , (1957), all disagreement over the meaning of Article 852 was resolved and it was held on rehearing by the Supreme Court as follows: “Under the provisions of
  • Stanford v. Robertson 144 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Aycock v. Carter 141 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    It is complained that the lower court erred as a matter of law in relying on the case of Hester v. Smith, supra, , (1957).
  • Duplantis v. Cehan 140 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Baudin v. Charrier 137 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    1 , , noted at 18 La.L.Rev.
  • Brashears v. Hood 137 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    482 ; , ; Mills v. Butler, La.App., .