Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Montgomery v. Breaux, 297 So. 2d 185.

43 citing documents.

Andre Lee v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks v. State of La., Department of Natural Resources La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Black River Crawfish Farms, LLC v. Jack A. King, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
LAW AND DISCUSSION “All that must be considered in the peremptory exception of prescription is whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the alleged time period has run under the requirements of the particular code articles involved.”
Black River Crawfish Farms, LLC v. King 246 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Montgomery v. Breaux , , 187 (La.1974).
Sullivan v. City of Baton Rouge 170 So. 3d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Bretz v. Samuel 107 So. 3d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Quincy L. Cawthorne v. Jace Fogleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Cawthorne v. Fogleman 107 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Sanders Family, LLC No. 1 v. Sanders 82 So. 3d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Tealwood Properties, L.L.C. v. Succession of Graves 64 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Allstate Insurance v. Fred's, Inc. 33 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Reed v. Abney 928 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
1 Cir. 4/4/96) , 1122 n. 6, writ granted in part, judgment set aside by, 96-1651 (La.10/25/96)
Jenkins v. Baldwin 801 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Traweek v. LaBorde 713 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Bass v. Laporte 672 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Tichenor v. Roman Catholic Church 665 So. 2d 1307 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Short v. Griffin 656 So. 2d 635 La. 1995
Hesser v. Richardson 579 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Dwyer v. Smith 546 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Cuthbertson v. Unopened Succession of Tate 544 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
which stands for the proposition that when a plea of acquisitive prescription is sustained as a defense to a petitory action, the petitory action is defeated and the court may not declare the defendant to be the owner of the property.
Lewis v. Sohio Petroleum Co. 528 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
appeal after remand, (La.App.
Boneno v. Lasseigne 514 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
the Supreme Court was concerned with admission of former testimony in another possessory action.
Layton v. Watts Corp. 498 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
In Montgomery v. *28 Breaux, the court stated at 187: "All that must be considered in the peremptory exception of prescription is whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the alleged time period has run under the requirements of the particular code articles involved...."
River Lands Fleeting Corp. v. Ashland Plantation, Inc. 498 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Cooper v. Farris 491 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
However, the Supreme Court refused to limit the plea of acquisitive prescription to that of an exception.
Aymond v. Smith 476 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
App.1st Cir.1979), writ denied
Mulkey v. Stoney-Point Missionary Baptist Church 462 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Harkins 458 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Short v. Jones 457 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Ward v. Standard Materials, Incorporated, (La.App.
Whitley v. Texaco, Inc. 434 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Bernelle v. Town of Richwood 420 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Stutts v. Humphries 408 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Finley v. Hailey 389 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
That case and its progenitor, dealt with judgments that sustained peremptory exceptions of acquisitive prescription in petitory actions where the exceptions were tried and sustained prior to a trial on the merits.
Badeaux v. Pitre 382 So. 2d 954 La. 1980
160 ; Reine v. Frederick, La.App.1955, ; Garrett v. Ernest, La.App., .
Yount v. Copellar 374 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Although our Supreme Court, held that the defendant in a possessory action may file an exception of acquisitive prescription as a bar to the possessory action, the court recognized that without a recon- *728 ventional demand or other procedure claiming ownership by the exceptor, the court cannot declare the exceptor owner by acquisiti
Garrett v. Ernest 369 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
hall: "(1) Make out his title thereto, if the court finds that the defendant is in possession thereof * * *" It is well settled that when the defendant is in possession, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title and not the weakness of that of his adversary, and the title of the defendant is not at issue until plaintiff has proved valid title in himself
Suire v. Primeaux 363 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Bostick v. Foret 351 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
[3] Cook v. Martin, 188 La.
Davidge v. Magliolo 353 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
William T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Wellman 343 So. 2d 996 La. 1977
Montgomery v. Breaux 338 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Wellman 346 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
our Supreme Court held that a plea of acquisitive prescription could be raised in a petitory action by means of a peremptory exception.
Schutten v. Orleans Parish Levee District 320 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975