Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Seals, 150 So. 2d 13.

45 citing documents.

C.S. Gaidry, Inc., and Schwing Management, LLC v. Low Land Construction Company, Inc., XYZ Insurance Company and Harry … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Succession of Seals,, La.
William Terry Ebarb and Dewanna N. Ebarb v. Unopened Succ. of Alfair Jones Sepulvado La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Norman Michael Sepulvado v. William Terry Ebarb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Ebarb v. Unopened Succession Sepulvado 241 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See Succession of Seals , , (1963).
Creek Management, L.L.C. v. Unopened Succession & Unknown Heirs or Legatees of Williams 223 So. 3d 1194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
See Franks Petroleum, Inc., supra (a judgment of possession along with quitclaim deeds from almost all co-owners was sufficient); , (1963) (a brother and heir of decedent acquired quitclaim deed from widow in addition to interest from succession to give notice).
Andras v. Heirs of Thibodeaux 157 So. 3d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Cockerham v. Cockerham 16 So. 3d 1264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
(1963); Franks Petroleum, Inc., supra; Givens, supra.
Tilley v. Unopened Succession of Howard 976 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
(1963); Franks Petroleum, Inc., supra ; Givens, supra .
O'BRIEN v. Alcus Lands Partnership Trust 577 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Clifton v. Liner 552 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
2d Cir.1962), modified on other grounds, , (1963).
Peacock v. West Carroll Parish Police Jury 454 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Towles v. Heirs of Morrison 428 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Like language, however, was used in a deed in , (1963), in which an adverse possessor was found to have established sufficient hostile notice and possession for thirty years prescription against co-owners.
Adams v. Adams 404 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Minton v. Whitworth 393 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
of Seals, , (1963); (La.
Matter of Succession of Littleton 391 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
of Seals, , (1963); (La.App.
Tassin v. Rhynes 366 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
We cited , ; Continental Oil Company v. Arceneaux, La.App., , and Detraz v. Pere, La.App., .
Shell Oil Co. v. Hebert 373 So. 2d 1339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
of Seals, , (1963); Ewald v. Hodges, 239 La.
Valvoline Oil Company v. Krauss 335 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Bolton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 308 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
3d Cir. 1963); , (1963).
Traigle v. Parish of Calcasieu 296 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
As the Supreme Court pointed out in , (1963), ".
Daigre v. Cochrane 287 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Wilturner v. Duhon 284 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
We think applicable to this case is the statement made by the court in Humble, namely: “Finally, we think there is applicable here the doctrine expressed by our Supreme Court in the recent case of , , in which the court stated : ‘The genius of our law does not favor the claims of those who have long slept on their rights and who, after years of inertia, conveying an assurance, of acquiescence in a given state of things, suddenly wake up at the welcome vision of an unexpected advantage and invoke
Paige v. Tregre 283 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Givens v. Givens 273 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Watson v. Veuleman 260 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
Robinson v. Jackson 255 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
Allen v. Paggi Brothers Oil Company 244 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
of Seals, , ; Continental Oil Co. v. Arceneaux, La.App., ; Detraz v. Pere, La.App., .
Southeastern Public Service Co. v. Barras 246 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Occupancy, use, payment of taxes and the like will not suffice.” In support of their prescriptive title the Charles Barras Group cite the following: , (1963), (La.App.
Liuzza v. Heirs of Nunzio 241 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
We think that Mr. Justice McCaleb, in his concurring opinion in , 150 So.
Gulling v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company 228 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Shroeder v. Schroeder, La.App., .
Humble v. Dewey 215 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
of Seals, , (1963); (La.App.
Dupuis v. Broadhurst 213 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
Counsel for the defendants, heirs of Dr. Wright, who were substituted for the executor of the succession, contend that the instant case is controlled by , (1963), decided by the Supreme Court of this State.
Jackson v. Hanna 206 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
The situation is similar to that which occurred in the , (1963): "The synopsis of the testimony states that some of the defendants considered the sixty acres herein involved as `heir property.'
Clement v. Perry 194 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Detraz v. Pere 183 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Continental Oil Company v. Arceneaux 183 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Fairman v. Robert 181 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Although Succession of Seals, supra, was reversed by the Supreme Court on other grounds ( , ), the Supreme Court in its decision expressly repeated and reaffirmed the rule as stated.
Rigsby v. Rigsby 180 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Naquin 167 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
The last case relied on by Heirs of Francois Naquin which we need consider is , .
Vehrs v. Jefferson Insurance Co. 166 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Baker v. Schuman 165 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
2 Cir., 1962) , reversed on other grounds, , (1963).
Caire v. Sullivan 162 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
The law is clearly stated in the concurring opinion of Justice McCaleb in the So.2d 13 , as follows: “A distinction should be recognized, I think, between a case like this, in which a co-owner pleading 30-year acquisitive prescription takes initial possession under a deed translative of the property, albeit invalid, and a case in which a co-owner enters possession of the whole without a pap
Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and MacHinery Company 158 So. 2d 179 La. 1963
231 , ; , ; 82 A. L.R.2d 21.
Clark v. Richardson 157 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Boudoin 154 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
in which the court stated: "`The genius of our law does not favor the claims of those who have long slept on their rights and who, after years of inertia, conveying an assurance of acquiescence in a given state of things, suddenly wake up at the welcome vision of an unexpected advantage and invoke the aid of the cou