Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Young v. Stevens, 209 So. 2d 25.

31 citing documents.

Nolton Dalcourt v. Thomas Moyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
3 Cir. 1980) ( So.2d 25 (1967))).
Lydia Degueyter v. First American Title Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
ack’s Law Dictionary defines “merchantable” as “fit for sale in the usual course of trade at the usual selling prices” and further indicates marketable as the predominant term for “merchantable.” “Property has a merchantable title when it can be readily sold or mortgaged in the ordinary course of business by reasonable persons familiar with the facts and questions involved.” (La.
Degueyter v. First American Title Co. 230 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
lack’s Law Dictionary defines “merchantable” as “fit for sale in the usual course of trade at the usual selling prices” and further indicates marketable as the predominant term for ' “merchantable.” “Property has a merchantable title when it can be readily sold or- mortgaged in the ordinary course of business by reasonable persons familiar With the facts and questions involved.” , (La.
Latter & Blum, Inc. v. Ditta 223 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Raymond C. Davis v. Robert St. Romain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
3 Cir. 1980) ( So.2d 25 (1967)).
Davis v. St. Romain 222 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
3 Cir. 1980) ( , (1967)).
THAD DEVIER AND DE VIER CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. Robert 5 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Swoboda v. SMT PROPERTIES, LLC 975 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
(1967); Hunley v. Ascani, 174 La.
Charlene Trahan v. Kathleen Trahan Johnson, Et Vir La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Trahan v. Johnson 915 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Brown v. Ardoin 663 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Miller v. Potier 649 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Parker v. MacHen 567 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
(1968); Meeks v. Romen Petr., Inc., (La.App.
Bart v. Wysocki 558 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Wright v. Barnes 541 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Lavenia v. National Business Consultants, Inc., (La.
Arms v. New Orleans Area Council, Boy Scouts of America 522 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
In a , at 36 (1968), Justice McCaleb commented: “While it is true that the Court in Hunley v. Ascani resolved that the purchasers could not be relieved of their contract as they had inspected the premises and were satisifed with the frontage of the lot, these observations were unnecessary to the opinion in my
Buzbee v. Fidelity National Bank 492 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(1968), at 35, the Court said, “We conclude that Mrs. Stevens’ title is suggestive of litigation and is therefore not merchantable.” The same statement of the issue was used in Lake Forest, Inc. v. Bon Marche Homes, Inc., (La.App.
Vazquez v. Davis 466 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Meeks v. Romen Petroleum, Inc. 452 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
: "Property has a merchantable title when it can be readily sold or mortgaged in the ordinary course of business by reasonable persons familiar with the facts and questions involved."
Williams v. Coe 417 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Lake Forest, Inc. v. Bon Marche Homes, Inc. 410 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Zatzkis v. Fuselier 398 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Morrison v. Fineran 397 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Vallery v. Belgard 379 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Lake Forest, Inc. v. Bon Marche Homes, Inc. 356 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Yet the existence of circumstances justifying good-faith litigation claiming title in a squatter makes a record title unmerchantable; Young v. Stevens, 1968, , .
Langford Land Co. v. Dietzgen Corp. 352 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Solar Gen. Contractor, Ltd. v. Urban Redevelopments, Inc. 345 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
4th Cir. 1964); , (1968).
Terry v. Richmond 314 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Kempff v. Morgan 291 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Davenport v. Lemon Tree of Ruston, Inc. 230 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Cadow v. Jensen 218 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
On the other hand, , , in which the encroachments involved were on the plaintiff-vendee’s land.