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.

  • Derouen v. Poirier 136 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Sessum v. Hemperley et al., 1957, , p. 841 .” (Emphasis added.)
  • Lafont v. Arabie 132 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Finally, , , which was a boundary suit decided in favor of defendant therein upon a plea of 30 years prescription interposed upon authority of LSA-C.C.
  • Roberts v. Dutton 130 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Pan American Production Co. v. Robichaux, 200 La.
  • Nelken v. Aldredge 128 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Justice Simon had occasion to interpret the prescription of thirty years per LSA-C.C.
  • Bernelle v. Davenport 116 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    *140 and we quote from the opinion of the court in said case the following pertinent pronouncements.
  • Scott v. Blanton 115 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    To say that the term means ‘enclosed only by a fence or wall’ would be giving it a very strict and narrow construction, not justified or supported by the articles of the Code, as we have herein-above pointed out, and would lead to absurd consequences in some cases.” Also of special significance is a pronouncement in Sessum v. Hemperley, 1957, , , wherein the Supreme Court held that Article 852 of the LSA-Civil Code and applicable jurisprudence do not exact as a condition precedent the mutual con
  • Arledge v. Gleason 113 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    In a case thoroughly considered by this court ( ), and by the Supreme Court, Sessum v. Hemperley, 1957, , , on page 843, Simon, J., author of the final opinion in the Supreme Court, made these comments, which seem peculiarly appropriate to the case now before this court: “In the case of Opdenwyer v. Brown, 155 La.
  • Sabine Lumber Co. v. Garcia 110 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    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.” The author of the opinion in Ses-sum v. Hemperley, 1957, , , after reviewing the problems which have arisen in our jurisprudence concerning the application of
  • Fitzgerald v. Leiendecker 100 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    but we are unable to find anything in the opinion of the Supreme Court on final hearing of the above case which would support the position taken by defendant under the facts of the instant case.
  • Callais v. Parra 99 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957