Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McGuffy v. Weil, 125 So. 2d 154.

62 citing documents.

Kenneth M. Spears v. Andy Welch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
(1960): “any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner”.
W&T Offshore, L.L.C. v. Texas Brine Corporation and Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. C/W Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. v. … La. 2019
(1960): “any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner.” The rule that the proper interpretation of an ambiguous instrument is that which least restricts the ownership of the land has be
Joan Brunson v. Crown Brake, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
(1960): “any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner”.
Brunson v. Crown Brake, LLC 275 So. 3d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
767, , 158 (1960) : "any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner".
Norris Clement v. Brent J. Menard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
158, (1958))( So.2d 154 (1960)).
Clement v. Menard 270 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
158 , (1958) )(also citing McGuffy v. Weil , , (1960) ).
Charles Henry Davis, Et Ux. v. Sabine Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
(1960): “any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner”.
Troy Davis v. Willis Provost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
La.Civ.Code art. 730; So.2d 154, 158 (1960).
Davis v. Provost 980 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Code art. 730; , (1960).
Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc. 942 So. 2d 471 La. 2006
Head v. Gray 938 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
The Southern Amusement Co., Inc. v. Pat's of Henderson Seafood & Steak,inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
La.Civ.Code art. 730; So.2d 154, 158 (1960).
South. Amusement Co. v. Pat's of Henderson 871 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
La.Civ.Code art. 730; , (1960).
Chambless v. Parker 867 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
John C. McMullen and Melanie J. McMullen v. City of Sulphur La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
(1960): “any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner”.
McMullen v. City of Sulphur 863 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
(1960): “any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner”.
Bare v. King 842 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Regarding the interpretation of restrictions on the use of property, , (1960): The law favors the free and unrestrained use of immovable property.
Silmon Property & Development Co. v. Pleasantview Apartments Partnership 814 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
(1960) (restriction of commercial usage imposed on a single lot in favor of another lot).
Martinez v. Tran Ossun Corp. 805 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
(1960): The law favors the free and unrestrained use of immovable property.
Wetzel v. Khan 797 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Blanchard v. Rand 781 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Griffith v. Cathey 762 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
La.Civ.Code art. 730; , (1960).
Mardis v. Brantley 717 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
646-647, 731-734; , (1960); (La.App.
Brier Lake, Inc. v. Jones 710 So. 2d 1054 La. 1998
893, 900 , (1968); , (1960); (La.App.
Palomeque v. Prudhomme 664 So. 2d 86 La. 1995
La.Civ.Code art. 730; , (1960).
Palomeque v. Prudhomme 664 So. 2d 88 La. 1995
La.Civ.Code art. 730; , (1960).
Palomeque v. Prudhomme 650 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
(1960); La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 730 (West 1980).
Distinguished EP Dobson, Inc. v. Perritt 566 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
(1960), relied on by defendants, is readily distinguishable.
West v. Godair 538 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Consequently there has arisen the principle that the proper interpretation is that which least restricts ownership of the land conveyed ( , (1960)) and the rule of ejusdem generis."
Jones v. Hospital Corp. of America 516 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
770, 776 and 777; , (1960).
Marina Enterprises v. Ahoy Marine Services 496 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
It “refers to the method by which the servitude may be created and does not relate exclusively to the conveyance of the servient estate.” , (1960) (interpreting La.C.C.
Guillotte v. Wells 485 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
(1960), interpreting former CC Art. 766
Texaco v. Newton & Rosa Smith Charitable Trust 471 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
468 (1937); , (1960); LeSage v. Ellerbee Builders, Inc., (La.App.
Oakbrook Civic Ass'n v. Sonnier 470 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
art. 783; , (1960); Lake Forest, Inc., 352 So.2d at 307 .
Continental Group, Inc. v. Allison 404 So. 2d 428 La. 1981
Consequently there has arisen the principle that the proper interpretation is that which least restricts ownership of the land conveyed ( , (1964)) and the rule of ejusdem generis.
LaSalle Properties, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 391 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
McGuire v. Central Louisiana Elec.
Bossier Center, Inc. v. B & B SYSTEMS, INC. 388 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
(1960), a use restriction applicable to only one lot was construed to be a C.C.
Tate v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. 386 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Exxon Corp. v. Barry 384 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1960): ‘any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner’.
Continental Group, Inc. v. Allison 379 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Richard v. Broussard 378 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
TALL TIMBERS OWNERS'ASS'N v. Merritt 376 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
(1960), our Supreme Court noted that a restriction not to sell, transfer or use the property except for residential purposes, constituted a covenant running with the land, binding upon all subsequent owners.
Vinson v. Levy 372 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Langevin v. Howard 363 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Lake Forest, Inc. v. Drury 352 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Levy v. Graham 347 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Articles 727, 728, 766, Civil Code; , (1960).
McLure v. Alexandria Golf & Country Club, Inc. 344 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Although Article 753 has been given a broader meaning, , 125 So.2d.
McGuire v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co., Inc. 337 So. 2d 1070 La. 1976
art. 753; , (1960); (La.App.
Vangraff, Inc. v. McCearley 314 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
the court was faced with the interpretation of a restrictive covenant which limited the use of the property to residential purposes and required that all dwellings erected must face Stubbs Place.
Beyt v. Woodvale Place Apartments 297 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
794 , (1961); , (1960); and Community Builders, (La.App.