Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 330 So. 2d 914.

40 citing documents.

Lillian E. Landaiche Roy v. Sheriff Bill Belt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
4 Cir.), writ denied, the fourth circuit rejected a plaintiff‟s argument that error by the clerk of court in misfiling a motion to fix for trial was a circumstance beyond the plaintiff‟s control, stating: Admittedly plaintiff‟s counsel, for a reasonable period of time, would have no reason to suspect his
Roy v. Belt 149 So. 3d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir.), unit denied, the fourth circuit rejected a plaintiffs argument that error by the clerk of court in misfiling a motion to fix for trial was a circumstance beyond the plaintiffs control, stating: Admittedly plaintiffs counsel, for a reasonable period of time, would have no reason to suspect his signed order placing the ca
Borgnemouth Realty Co. v. Parish of St. Bernard 141 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation 79 So. 3d 246 La. 2011
439 , (1941), overruled on other grounds, Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., (La.
Troy Davis v. Willis Provost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Lake, Schoenrich, Acquisition Of Rights Of Way By Prescription, 12 Tul.L.Rev.
Davis v. Provost 980 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Lake, Schoenrich, Acquisition Of Rights Of Way By Prescription, 12 Tul.
Overruled Steve H. Crooks and Era Lea Crooks v. Placid Refining Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Julien remained the law until 1976 when it was overruled in Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, (La.
Overruled Crooks v. Placid Refining Co. 903 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Julien remained the law until 1976 when it was overruled in Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company
Concha Chemical Pipeline v. Schwing 835 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Julien was re-affirmed in many later cases and remained the rule of law until 1976 when Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, was decided.
Wetzel v. Khan 797 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
See e.g., Lake v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, and R.S.
Griffith v. Cathey 762 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
1976); Lake, Schoenrich, Acquisition Of Rights Of Way By Prescription, 12 Tul.L.Rev.
Viesel v. Republic Ins. Co. 665 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
denied, no protracted period of time elapsed which should have placed Viesel on notice that something was amiss and that the formal "step" to prosecute his claim never took place.
Sellers v. St. Charles Parish 655 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Broomfield v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 623 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
art. 727 (1870); Lake v. Louisiana Power & Light
Howard v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 583 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
App. 4th Cir.1975); reversed
Weigand v. Asplundh Tree Experts 577 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
In Lake, Inc. v. LP & L, our Supreme Court, disenchanted with this extra-codal establishment of predial servitudes, overruled the St.
Citicorp Acceptance Co. v. Gelpi 563 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
In support of their argument, they cite Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., wherein the Supreme Court overruled the “St.
Campbell v. Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corp. 528 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Almost 100 years later, in Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, the court overruled St.
Besse v. Blossman 521 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District v. Newport Ltd. 517 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
In Lake Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., the Supreme Court recognizing the conflict St.
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Holmes 422 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
As Judge Culpepper of this Court noted in Rogers v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., Inc., supra, at page 33: "In Lake, Inc. v. LP&L, our Supreme Court, disenchanted with this extra-codal establishment of predial servitudes, overruled the St.
Vial v. South Central Bell Telephone 423 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
4th Cir. 1975); reversed
Boudreaux v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury 422 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
19:14; Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Gumbel v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 186 La.
Cancienne v. Lafourche Parish Police Jury 423 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
St.Julien was re-affirmed in many later cases and remained the rule of law until 1976 when Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, was decided.
Overruled City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Canal, Inc. 412 So. 2d 975 La. 1982
Julien was overruled prospectively in Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company
Sanders v. Plaquemines Cable TV, Inc. 407 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
or of Plaquemines Cablevision, Inc., concerning four of the six encroachments; provided the metal building and tower were within the forty foot square leasehold and that all cable, electric or power lines, except for the service cable running from the tower to the disc on adjacent property, and were therefore covered by the "St.
Robco, Inc. v. CONSOLIDATED SEWERAGE, ETC. 400 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, held that a power line was a discontinuous apparent servitude.
Parish of Jefferson v. Marsh Inv. Corp. 398 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
See, however, Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., La.1976, , overruling in part St.
Rogers v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., Inc. 391 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
In Lake, Inc. v. LP&L, our Supreme Court, disenchanted with this extra-codal establishment of predial servitudes, overruled the St.
Holt v. City of Bossier City 384 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Julien doctrine has been recently held inapplicable to a “discontinuous apparent” servitude such as an electric power transmission line (held to be “discontinuous” because the act of man was required for its exercise) in Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
Greene v. Greene 373 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Despite the plaintiffs' assertions that Nash is in error, it is controlling on this Court, having been re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lake
Brooks v. New Orleans Public Service 370 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Julien doctrine was reaffirmed in many later cases and remained the rule until 1976, when it was partly overruled by Lake
State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Champagne 371 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Julien doctrine cannot be applied in the instant case due to its abrogation by the Supreme Court in the case of Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
Trustee Corp. v. Allen 359 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
However, Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, prospectively overruled St.
Corpus Christi Parish Credit Union v. Martin 358 So. 2d 295 La. 1978
520 (1863); Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., Inc., State v. Ray, 259 La.
Joseph A. Neyrey, Gen. Cont., Inc. v. La. P. & L. Co. 347 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
That doctrine was later repudiated in Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
STATE DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. Thurston 338 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
The cases following this doctrine have recently been overruled in Lake, (La.
McGuire v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co., Inc. 337 So. 2d 1070 La. 1976
924 (1883) overruled prospectively by Lake v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., (La.
Johnson v. Welsh 334 So. 2d 395 La. 1976
Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., In re Interest of Toler, 262 La.
Farrell v. Hodges Stock Yards, Inc. 333 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The Supreme Court decision in Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La., , proceeding No. 57085, of March 29, 1976, renders a discussion of the argument academic.