DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rockholt v. Keaty, 237 So. 2d 663.

33 citing documents.

  • Terri L. Babineaux v. Douglas W. Stonicher La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    In that case, the court stated, 6 “[s]ervitudes are restraints on the free disposal and use of property, and are not, on that account, entitled to be viewed with favor by the law.” But, So.2d 663 (1970), the Louisiana Supreme Court noted the benefit to the public of keeping valuable property in commerce when specifically discussing a right-of-passage predial servitude for the benefit of a dominate estate to have access to a public road.
  • Corley v. C & J Frye Properties, LLC 176 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
  • Phipps v. Schupp 163 So. 3d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Yiannopoulos, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Predial Servitudes § 5:5 (4th ed.2014) (“[A]n estate is enclosed if it has no access to a public road.”); 7 Phipps, 09-2037, p. 7, 45 So.3d at 598 (noting that a road is designated as “public” if it is open to vehicular traffic for members of the general public and maintained by the public)
  • Thibco Investments, LLC v. Thibodeaux 102 So. 3d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Although not directly analogous to the facts of this case, ( , (1970)), the supreme court noted that there is a strong public policy discouraging landlocking.
  • Elston v. Montgomery 70 So. 3d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    690 and 705 refer only to “the kind of traffic that is reasonably necessary” and the “reasonable use of the dominant estate,” but argue that the concept of necessity has been interpreted to permit the owner of the dominant estate to “obtain full utility of his land,” , (1970), and “in the manner which he may deem most profitable,” Littlejohn v. Cox, 15 La.
  • Mandy Louise Lacroix Perdue v. Danny Doyle Cruse La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    So.2d 663 (1970), and Littlejohn v. Cox, 15 La.Ann.
  • Perdue v. Cruse 38 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    (1970), and Littlejohn v. Cox, 15 La.Ann.
  • Spruell v. Dudley 951 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, , (La.
  • Kevin Michael May v. Thomas H. Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    12/14/01), in discussing the application of these articles: [A]s So.2d 663 (1970), the owner of an enclosed estate does not have discretion to choose which estate should be burdened with a legal right of passage.
  • May v. Miller 941 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    2 Cir. 7/11/01), -74 , writ denied, 01-2573 (La.12/14/01), in discussing the application of these articles: [A]s , (1970), the owner of an enclosed estate does not have discretion to choose which estate should be burdened with a legal right of passage.
  • CASH POINT PLANTATION EQUESTRIAN v. Shelton 920 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • Gary Roland Bailey v. Neil Douglas McNeely, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    For example, recognized the “the strong public policy of this state which is to discourage landlocking.” The court, So.2d 663, 688 (1970) went on to note that “[a]s land becomes less available, more necessary for public habitation, use, and support, it would run contrary to public policy to encourage landlocking of such a valuable asset and forever removing it from commerce and from public as well as private benefit.” LeBl
  • Bailey v. McNeely 918 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    The court, , (1970) went on to note that " [a]s land becomes less available, more necessary for public habitation, use, and support, it would run contrary to public policy to encourage landlocking of such a valuable asset and forever removing it from commerce and from public as well as private benefit."
  • Gatson v. Bailey 907 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    *866 , (1970), speaking broadly about the importance of the Civil Code's legal servitude for the right of passage to the enclosed estate, our supreme court observed: While Article 699 [now La.
  • Kavanagh v. Bowers 826 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Davis v. Culpepper 794 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    In addition, , (1970), the owner of an enclosed estate does not have discretion to choose which estate should be burdened with a legal right of passage.
  • Stephenson v. Nations Credit Financial Services Corp. 754 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Braxton v. Guillory 721 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Tessier v. Medical Center of Baton Rouge 636 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    1104, 1109 , -525 (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court, in considering a right of passage, stated: , (1970), we recognized the importance of this servitude for the benefit not only of the landowner by permitting full utility of his land, but also of the public by keeping valuable property in commerce....
  • LeBlanc v. Thibodeaux 615 So. 2d 295 La. 1993
    [7] Finally, , had determined that it was against public policy to encourage landlocking of property.
  • LeBlanc v. Thibodeaux 595 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    The court, , (1970), then applied an equitable balance of interests test and determined that plaintiffs were entitled to a right of passage under La.C.C.
  • Pearson v. Theriot 534 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    (1970); Vermilion Parish School Board v. Broussard, 263 La.
  • Bouser v. Morgan 520 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    : " , (1970), we recognized the importance of this servitude for the benefit not only of the landowner by permitting full utility of his land but also of the public by keeping valuable property in commerce.
  • Anderton v. Akin 493 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Lambert Development Co. v. State 482 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    (1970) for the proposition that the subject property is an “enclosed estate” within the meaning of LSA-C.C.
  • Tusson v. Hero Land Co. 446 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Rieger v. Norwood 401 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1970); Morgan v. Culpepper, *1274 (La.App.
  • Finn v. Eoff 368 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1970), recognized the importance of the servitude to the landowner by allowing full utility of his land and to the public by keeping valuable property in commerce.
  • STATE DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. Romano 343 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Morgan v. Culpepper 324 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    699 and 700, stated: , (1970), we recognized the importance of this servitude for the benefit not only of the landowner by permitting full utility of his land but also of the public by keeping valuable property in commerce.
  • Patin v. Richard 291 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Vermilion Parish School Board v. Broussard 270 So. 2d 523 La. 1972
    “Nevertheless, it shall be fixed in the place the least injurious to the person on whose estate the passage is granted.” *1110 , (1970), we recognized the importance of this servitude for the benefit not only of the landowner by permitting full utility of his land but also of the public by keeping valuable property in commerce.
  • Lafayette Airport Commission v. Roy 265 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972