Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hilliard v. Shuff, 256 So. 2d 127.

23 citing documents.

Jesse Justin Colvin and Ruby Sue Hill Colvin v. Robert Bradford Jones and Roni Michelle Reppond Jones Consolidated … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2026
Badke v. USA Speedway, LLC 139 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Hilliard, v. Shuff, , (1971).
Parish of East Feliciana v. Guidry 923 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
(1971), citing Devoke v. Yazoo & M.V.R.
El Paso Field Service, Inc. v. Stephen Minvielle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
El Paso Field Service, Inc. v. Minvielle 867 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Butler v. Baber 529 So. 2d 374 La. 1988
(1971), the third case in 1971, dealt with four above ground fuel tanks on the property of a truck stop owner.
Day v. Warren 524 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Stewart v. City of Pineville 511 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
*28 “In Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., the Court stated: ‘ , (1972), this Court restated, as a universally accepted rule of law, the right of the owner of property to conduct thereon any lawful business not per se a nuisance, as long as the business is so conducted that it will not unreasonably inconvenience a neighbor in the reasonable enjoyment of his property
Oakbrook Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Sonnier 481 So. 2d 1008 La. 1986
Rodrigue v. Copeland 475 So. 2d 1071 La. 1985
Elnaggar v. Fred H. Moran Const. Corp. 468 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
In Hero Lands Company, supra, Summers, J., for the Supreme Court, made the following pertinent observations: " , (1972), this Court restated, as a universally accepted rule of law, the right of the owner of property to conduct thereon any lawful business not per se a nuisance, as long as the business is so conducted that it will not unreasonably inconvenience a neighbor in the reasonable enjoyment of his property
Bodoin v. Daigle 452 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Compare Hillard v. Shuff , (1972) (Barham, J., dissenting) ."
Acadian Heritage Realty v. City of Lafayette 434 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
(1972) (Barham, J., dissenting)."
Acadian Heritage Realty, Inc. v. City of Lafayette 394 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
(1972) (Barham, J., dissenting)."
Lenard v. Lenard 386 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc. 310 So. 2d 93 La. 1975
(1972), this Court restated, as a universally accepted rule of law, the right of the owner of property to conduct thereon any lawful business not per se a nuisance, as long as the business is so conducted that it will not unreasonably inconvenience a neighbor in the reasonable enjoyment of his property
Merco Lands, Inc. v. Hutchinson 306 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 296 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1971); Jeansonne v. Cox, 233 La.
Salter v. BWS Corporation, Inc. 290 So. 2d 821 La. 1974
3601; , (1972); Frederick v. Brown Funeral Homes, 222 La.
Hilliard v. Shuff 285 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 284 So. 2d 905 La. 1973
1 , (1971), , (1971), I have tried to expose the fallacy of the rationale here presented by this majority.
Hilliard v. Shuff 280 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
For the determination of the terms and conditions of the injunction, the case is remanded to the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.” , (1971).
Salter v. BWS Corporation, Inc. 281 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
[8] , (1972); Work of the Supreme Court, 1949-1950Property, 11 La.L.Rev.