DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and MacHinery Company, 158 So. 2d 179.

14 citing documents.

  • James Addison McCalmont, III v. James A. McCalmont, IV and Payton Brooks McCalmont La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., So.2d 179, 184 (1963); see Five N Company, L.L.C. v. Stewart, 02–0181 (La.App.
  • Milo Nickel v. Mb Industries, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., So.2d 179 (1963).
  • Joseph Graham v. Catherine Bernheimer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    the trial court, in its written reasons for judgment, correctly posed the following question: “whether the partition deed executed by four of the five Graham heirs would have conferred upon plaintiff the other heirs’ rights of accrued possession inherited by them from their parents[?]” In answer to this question, the trial court cited to Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Company, Inc., So.2d 179, in which the supreme court determined that one heir who had obtained the land contiguous to the
  • Graham v. Bernheimer 6 So. 3d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    heirs, the trial court, in its written reasons for judgment, correctly posed the following question: “whether the partition deed executed by four of the five Graham heirs would have conferred upon plaintiff the other heirs’ rights of accrued possession inherited by them from their parents[?]” In answer to this question, the trial court cited to Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Company, Inc., , , in which the supreme court determined that one hem who had obtained the land contiguous to the d
  • Smith v. LeBlanc 966 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., , (1963); see Five N Company, L.L.C. v. Stewart, 02-0181 (La.App.
  • P. Charles Calahan v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., (1963).
  • P. Charles Calahan, Aplc v. Scottsdale Ins. 903 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., , (1963).
  • FIVE N COMPANY LLC v. Stewart 850 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., , (1963), quoting 72 C.J.S.
  • Brown v. Wood 451 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    [4] , (1963), is a jurisprudential aberration and is apparently contrary to the traditional theoretical distinction between tacking under Art. 794 (old Art. 852) and tacking under the general prescription articles.
  • Noel v. Noel 312 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The question of the ownership of the same 38.88 , (1963).
  • Hilcliffe Farms, Inc. v. Marshall 306 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The factual situation here is almost identical to that in Noel v. Jumonville Pipe *339 and Machinery Company, , (1963).
  • Bunn v. A. J. Hodges Industries, Inc. 279 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1963); Stutson v. McGee, 241 La.
  • Delatte v. Petit 252 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    See Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co., , (1963).
  • Lauga v. Pestalozza 184 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Co., Inc., , .