DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Guyton v. Yancey, 125 So. 2d 365.

29 citing documents.

  • Charles A. Rivault, Arthur R. Lejeune, Claudia J. Lejeune, William J. Gibson, and Audubon Terrace Resident Homeowners Association … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
    See Guyton a Yancey, 125 So.
  • Lakewood Property Owners' Ass'n v. Kyle 183 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Hijazi v. Dentler 125 So. 3d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Civ.Code art. 782; , (1960).
  • Wright v. Griggs 821 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    (1960), the supreme court affirmed an injunction issued to prohibit a threatened violation of building restrictions by an owner who admitted that the house he planned to build would be in violation.
  • Travasos v. Stoma 672 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Guyton v. Yancey, [ , ]; (La.App.
  • Lakeshore Property Owners v. Delatte 579 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Diefenthal v. Longue Vue Management Corp. 561 So. 2d 44 La. 1990
    In a previous case dealing with the abandonment of restrictive covenants, , (1961), we relied on the following principles.
  • Lakeshore Property Owners v. Delatte 524 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • Ritter v. Fabacher 517 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Cook v. Hoover 428 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Schwab v. Kelton 405 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Gwatney v. Miller 371 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    These authoritative comments received the approval of the Supreme Court in Guyton v. Yancey [ , (1960) ], supra.
  • Mulberry Ass'n v. Richards 369 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1961) the Supreme Court recognized that as long as restrictions are of any value to the party possessing rights under these restrictions, he may enforce them.
  • Deshotels v. Fruge 364 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Hargroder v. City of Eunice 341 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    (1960); Edwards v. Wiseman, supra; Hill v. William P. Ross, Inc., 166 La.
  • Allen v. Forbess 345 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • East Parker Properties, Inc. v. Pelican Realty Co. 335 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Camelot Citizens Association v. Stevens 329 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1960), wherein the Supreme Court quoted with approval from the opinion of the Court of Appeal ( ) as follows: "Such technical violations can in no wise, we think, add to or take from the objects and purposes of the general scheme of development and will, therefore, be disregarded as
  • Mouille v. Henry 321 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Beyt v. Woodvale Place Apartments 297 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    3rd Cir. 1971); , (1961); McGuffy v. Weil, 240 La.
  • Melrose Civic Ass'n v. Universal Builders, Inc. 289 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    (1961), involved a subdivision in which the original owners had included a building restriction requiring 30 feet clearance from each side of the property line, and 80 feet set back form the front property line.
  • Fuller v. Hill Properties, Inc. 259 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    (1960), in which the supreme court in considering whether subdivision restrictions had been waived by repeated minor setback violations, quoted with approval the following language found in the opinion of the court of appeal: "`.
  • Fortson v. Lawrence 254 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Adams v. Brian 212 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Adair v. Chrysler 212 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    A , (1961) wherein Justice Hamiter was confronted with whether, vel non, the restrictive covenants had been so disregarded and abandoned as to constitute a subversion of the original scheme of the East Ridge Subdivision of Caddo Parish as to result in a substantial change in the neighborhood.
  • Fisher v. Smith 190 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    ( , ; Edwards v. Wiseman, 198 La.
  • Marquess v. Bamburg 188 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    659 , (1947); Clark v. Reed, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1960); , (1960).
  • Wright v. DeFatta 152 So. 2d 10 La. 1963
    (1960); Yanow v. Seven Oaks Park, Inc., 15 N.J.Super.
  • Hutson v. Continental Oil Co. 136 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The same conclusion-was reached by this court in Guyton v. Yancey, La.App., , affirmed by the Supreme Court, , 125 So.2d, 365 , 371, in which case counsel for plaintiffs-appellants in the matter before us were-counsel for defendant-relator.