DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

75 citing documents.

  • Tassin v. Rhynes 366 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    the plaintiff, Pure Oil Company, filed a concursus proceedings, depositing in the registry of the court certain royalties and naming as defendants the claimants to ownership of the land to which the royalties were attributable.
  • Rivet v. Dugas 377 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    [2] the Supreme Court held the plaintiff in a petitory action, seeking to eject a defendant in possession who claimed ownership adversely, was required to prove title good against the world without regard to title of the party in possession.
  • Tenneco Oil Company v. Houston 372 So. 2d 1194 La. 1979
  • Garrett v. Ernest 369 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Culligan Water Conditioning, Inc. v. Heirs of Watson 370 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Rimmer v. Jowers 367 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    We will first address the issue of whether plaintiff has sustained her burden of proving record title “good against the world”
  • Tenneco Oil Co. v. Houston 364 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
  • Bostick v. Foret 351 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
  • Munro v. Leisure, Inc. 346 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    This language has been interpreted to mean that the plaintiff must “show title good against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession.”
  • Harrison v. Alombro 341 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Article 3653, Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, La., (1974), and Verrett v. Norwood, supra.
  • Harvey v. Harvey 345 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Civil Procedure: “To obtain a judgment recognizing his ownership of the immovable property or real right, the plaintiff in a petitory action shall: “(1) Make out his title thereto, if the court finds that the defendant is in possession thereof; or “(2) Prove a better title thereto than the defendant, if the court finds that the latter is not in possession thereof.” it was held that Article 3653, supra, requires that the party with the burden of proof must “show title good against the world, with
  • Department of Highways v. Trichel 343 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The trial court, reasoned that the Department had failed to “make out its title” to the servitude, as required by LSA-C.C.P.
  • Freeman Baptist Church v. Herman Dempsey Hillen 345 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    our Supreme Court interpreted Article 3653(1), above, to mean that where defendant is in possession, plaintiff in a petitory action must make out title good against the world, regardless of the character or quality of defendant's title.
  • Voisin v. Luke 341 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Board of Commissioners v. S. D. Hunter Foundation 342 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The Levee District’s and shall prevail unless defendants’ claims of prescription ac-quirendi causa are recognized.
  • Green v. Cenac 336 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Bishop Homes, Inc. v. Devall 336 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    According to Pure Oil v. Skinner, La., (1974), a plaintiff in a petitory action makes out his title when he proves his ownership either by an unbroken chain of valid transfers from the sovereign or an ancestor in title common with the defendant.
  • McGee v. Harris 333 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    See Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, La., (S.Ct.1974), which was a concursus proceeding: Note, Declaratory Judgments Act—Use in Real Actions, 31 Tul.L.Rev.
  • McCullouch Oil Corp. v. Villejoin 336 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    We are aware of the recent Supreme Court case of Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, La., (1974), in which the majority held that the burden imposed by the clause “make out his title” under LSA-C.
  • Woodell v. Roberts 329 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
  • Vallee v. Richardson 331 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    18, 1971 (3rd Cir. La.App.1971); and, (S.Ct.La.1974).
  • Hanna v. Green 329 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
  • Romby v. Zion Hill Baptist Church 327 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    The most serious question raised by defendant on this appeal is whether plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to make out their title as a plaintiff in a
  • Ryder v. Lacour 322 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Succession of Kemp v. Robertson 316 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Relying upon Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, La., , Wells contends that plaintiffs, having converted the suit into a petitory action, bear the burden of establishing perfect title against the world, not just a better title than defendant as possessor.