Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, 294 So. 2d 797.

75 citing documents.

1026 Conti Holding, Llc v. 1025 Bienville, Llc La. 2023
Belleview Estates, L.L.C. v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Belleview opposed the motion, arguing that pursuant to Pure Oil Co. a Skinner, ( La.
Saline Lakeshore, L.L.C. v. Marlon Littleton and Benita Littleton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
our supreme court held that a plaintiff not in possession versus a defendant who is in possession is required “to show good title against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession.” Title “good against the world” is proven by showing an unbroken chain of valid titles from the
Andermann v. Rouillier 271 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
James claimed ownership to the gap tract, the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Pure Oil v. Skinner , , 798-99 (La.
Hooper v. Hero Lands Co. 216 So. 3d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Established jurisprudence requires a more onerous burden if the defendant is found to be hi possession of the property; that is, the plaintiff must prove “title good against the world.”
Roberson v. Chance 182 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
2d Cir. *213 1973), rev’d on other grounds
Durden v. Durden 165 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
the Court held that a plaintiff not in possession versus a defendant who is in possession is required "to show good title against the world without regard to title of the party in possession."
Sandra Jackson Davis v. Lemci, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
our supreme court held that a plaintiff not in possession versus a defendant who is in possession is required “to show good title against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession.” 294 So.2d at 799.
Davis v. LEMCI, LLC 144 So. 3d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
our supreme court held that a plaintiff not in possession versus a defendant who is in possession is required “to show good title against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession.” 294 So.2d at 799 .
Reynolds v. Brown 84 So. 3d 655 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 11/24/09) , , this court set forth the burden of proof in a petitory action such as this one: our supreme court held that a plaintiff not in possession versus a defendant who is in possession is required “to show good title against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession.” 294 So.2d at 799 .
Lyn Baker v. Rogerist L. Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Thus, according to Baker
Baker v. Romero 55 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Thus, according to Baker, *1039 (La.1974).
Langley v. Billiot 28 So. 3d 1154 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
art. 3653 by failing to present evidence of a complete chain of title back to the sovereign.
Ryan v. Lee 870 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
2d Cir.1973), rev'd on other grounds
Willson v. UNOPENED SUCCESSION OF DAVIS 832 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Fletcher v. Wilson 804 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Such proof of title is sometimes referred to as “title good against the world.” Pure Oil Co. v. *758 Skinner
Brooks v. Maggio 793 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the meaning of the foregoing phrase.
Pace v. Towns 756 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Exxon Corp. v. Garber 747 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Duck v. Guillory 737 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Mt. Everett African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Carter 705 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Chevron U.S.A., (La.App.
Conway v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corp. 635 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
O'BRIEN v. Alcus Lands Partnership Trust 577 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
2d Cir.1973), rev'd on other grounds
Clifton v. Liner 552 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Chevron USA Inc. v. Bergeron 551 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Landry 546 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Succession of Sorapuru v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. 529 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
art. 3653; La.Civ.Code art. 531; Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Butler, 234 La.
Norton v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 521 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Sellers v. Barthelemy 520 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
5 Cir.1983), this court held that Article 531 i.e., that such proof of ownership required the plaintiff "to show title good against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession."
Riverlands Fleeting Corp. v. Milliken & Farwell, Inc. 515 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
River Lands’ and Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 213 La.
LeBlanc v. Andrew 497 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
River Lands Fleeting Corp. v. Ashland Plantation, Inc. 498 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Estate of Fisher v. Otwell 485 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Dunbar v. Thibodeaux 485 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Gaudet v. City of Kenner 487 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Aymond v. Smith 476 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Nugent v. Franks 471 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Todd v. State Through Dept. of Natural Res. 456 So. 2d 1340 La. 1984
Bickham, Inc. v. Graves 457 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Avery v. Nash 448 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
after the adoption of LSA-C.C.
Egle v. Kidd 442 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Landry v. Dufour 432 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Whitley v. Texaco, Inc. 434 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Wheat Inc. v. Caruthers 428 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Raymond v. Simmons 424 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
stated that where defendant is in possession, plaintiff in a petitory action must make out his title good against the world, meaning a showing of title by an unbroken chain commencing with a separation from the sovereign, regardless of the character or quality *546 of defendant’s title.
Smith v. Overton 417 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
App. 3d Cir. 1973), reversed on grounds not here pertinent
Weaver v. Hailey 416 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Tenneco Oil Co. v. Houston, 364 So.
Stutts v. Humphries 408 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Heck 407 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Cheramie v. Cheramie 380 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Articles 3651 & 3653 Code of Civil Procedure; ([La.]