Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rodrigue v. Copeland, 475 So. 2d 1071.

18 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
Cottonport Bank v. Garrett 111 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Atkins v. Six C Properties, L.L.C. 55 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Distinguished Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc. 45 So. 3d 991 La. 2010
Gautreau v. Trahan 971 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Brent D. Gautreau, Et Ux. v. Paul M. Trahan, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
The obligations contained in these articles are legal servitudes imposed on the owner of property and “embody a balancing of rights and obligations associated with the ownership of immovables.” cert.
Parish of East Feliciana v. Guidry 923 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Deville v. Rapides Area Planning Com'n 715 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Bartlett v. Browning-Ferris Industries 683 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Rodrigue v. Copeland, [ (La.
Barrett v. TL James & Co. 671 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Barras v. Hebert 602 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
the Supreme Court said of these articles: These obligations of vicinage are legal servitudes imposed on the owner of property.
Diefenthal v. Longue Vue Management Corp. 561 So. 2d 44 La. 1990
667-669 dealing with the laws of vicinage, we ordered injunctive relief because defendant's activities constituted "an unreasonable intrusion into the lives of his neighbors when considered in light of the character of the neighborhood, the degree of the intrusion and its effect on the use and enjoyment of their properties by his neighbors."
Pinello v. Reed 559 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Evangeline Parish Police Jury v. Deshotel 556 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Day v. Warren 524 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
[5] -1078 (La.1985), as follows: OBLIGATIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD (C.C.
Klein v. Copeland 482 So. 2d 613 La. 1986
mber 10, 1985 *614 wherein we issued a decree in favor of plaintiffs, Herbert Rodrigue, Burton G. Klein and Mary Borrell, and against defendant, Alvin C. Copeland, enjoining defendant from erecting and operating a Christmas exhibition “in a manner which attracts bumper to bumper traffic and extremely large numbers of visitors to his limited access, residential neighborhood.”
Rodrigue v. Copeland 479 So. 2d 356 La. 1985
Considering the Foregoing verified Motion and Memorandum in support thereof, It Is Ordered that Alvin C. Copeland show cause at 10:00 o’clock A.M., before Division K of the 24th Judicial District Court on the 13th day of December, 1985 why he should not be held in contempt of this Court’s orders of September 10, 1985, as set out in this case, , and thereafter punished for such contempt.