Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse, 117 So. 2d 575.

17 citing documents.

Adobe Oil & Gas Corp. v. MacDonell 480 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
31:89 , (1960), the royalty interests of the Central Oil Company Group and the Garth Group were preserved by an interruption of prescription.
Shell Oil Co. v. Pitman 476 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
g that the waterway was presently non-navigable; and (2) Finding that the waterway was non-navigable in 1812; and (3) Basing its determination of navigability, for the purpose of determining contiguity of tracts of land, on the present navigability of the waterway rather than on its navigability in 1812; and (4) , rather than retroactively applying Article 89 of the Louisiana Mineral Code.
Sandefer & Andress, Inc. v. Pruitt 471 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
White v. Evans 457 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
417 , (1953); , (1960); (La.App.
Allied Chemical Corp. v. Despot 414 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
1954) or the holding in Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse, et al., , is applicable to the facts here presented.
Credit Service Corp. v. Prack 270 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Article 3520 and cases cited; , (1960) and cases therein cited.
Marathon Ins. Co. v. Warner 244 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
See, also: , (1960) Frost Lumber Industries v. Union Power Co., 182 La.
Exchange Oil & Gas Co. v. Foster 237 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Lavergne v. Savoie 221 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(1960), there was a mineral royalty interest on a 150-acre tract of land.
Whitehall Oil Company v. Heard 197 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
See: Yiannopoulos, Id.; Daggett, Id.; Succession of Simms, La., (decided November 7, 1966); , ; Union Oil & Gas Corp. v. Broussard, 237 La.
Trunkline Gas Co. v. Steen 179 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
y the Commissioner of Conservation did not result — (1) in the creation of any obstacle which prevented the Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, or any other interested party, from using in the area lying outside the drilling units the servitude in the manner contemplated by the reservation, or (2) have the slightest effect upon their right to do so.” , concerned the accrual of royalty prescription as to part of a parent tract outside a contractual drilling unit, voluntarily formed.
Frey v. Miller 165 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Montie v. Sabine Royalty Co., La.App.
Montie v. Sabine Royalty Company 161 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Jones 157 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
The existence of the unit may even have prevented prescription of outstanding royalty interests affecting their land outside the unit ( , ).
Melancon v. Cheramie 138 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
App., ; Bennett v. Robinson, La.App., ; , , and authorities cited in these cases, would be of no assistance in determining whether the plaintiff-appellant sold a royalty or mineral interest to Dolty Cheramie.
Odom v. Union Producing Company 129 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
463 , ; , ; Smith v. Carter Oil Co., D.C., 104 F.Supp.
Roberts v. Cooper 127 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
who restated the issue in the Elson case as follows: "Elson v. Mathewes involved the question of whether a mineral servitude, which had been created by the defendant landowner in favor of the plaintiff covering two contiguous tracts totalling 91 acres, had been kept alive as to one of the tracts