DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Bernstein, 25 So. 411.

33 citing documents.

  • Carpenter v. Cobb 293 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Ledoux v. Waterbury 261 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    115 , ; Barker v. Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co., 160 La.
  • Levraea v. Boudreaux 259 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    115 , , the Court said: “ * * * the mere fact that parties owning adjoining property have culti *646 vated lands up to a certain lme, or up to a certain fence, built either by one or both, or built by one and repaired by the other, does not per se evidence an adverse possession up to the line or fence, or in acquiescence in
  • Harvey v. Havard 225 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Branch v. Hinson 183 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • LaCalle v. Chapman 174 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Baudin v. Charrier 137 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Catsulis 136 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Though he was referring to the prescription set forth in LSA-Civil Code Art. 852, , 25 So.
  • Lafont v. Arabie 132 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    115 , , 415: “The action may be repelled by showing that the boundary line between the two properties had been settled by judicial decree, or by a survey made by a surveyor in conformity to the requirements of the Revised Civil Code.
  • Scott v. Blanton 115 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    115, 124 , , wherein the court stated : “The mere fact that parties owning adjoining property have cultivated lands up to a certain line, or up to a certain fence * * * does not per se evidence an adverse possession up to the line or fence, or an acquiescence in or recognition of an adverse ownership.
  • Talbot v. Pittman 114 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    115 , , where it was shown that a boundary had been established without adhering to the procedure of the Codal provisions it was held that a plea of prescription was not good and the court in.
  • Sessum v. Hemperley 96 So. 2d 832 La. 1957
    115 , ; Simmons v. Miller, La.App.
  • Roberson v. Green 91 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    115 , , 415: “ ‘The• mere fact that parties owning adjoining property have cultivated lands up to a certain line, or up to a certain fence, built either by one or both, or built by one and repaired by the other, does not per se evidence an adverse possession' up to the line or fence, or an acquiescence in or recognition of
  • LeBlanc v. Barrios 89 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    115 , , Blanchard v. Monrose, 12 La.App 503, 125 So.
  • Wait v. Pearson 88 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    115 , at page 124, , quoted with approval in Collett v. Otis, La.App., 1 Cir., , Beene v. Pardue, La.App., .
  • Collett v. Otis 80 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    115 , , the Supreme Court through Chief Justice Nicholls clearly designated the suit as one of boundary, pure and simple.
  • Beene v. Pardue 79 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    115, 124 , , 415: "The mere fact that parties owning adjoining property have cultivated lands up to a certain line, or up to a certain fence, built either by one or by both, or built by one and repaired by the other, does not per se evidence an adverse possession up to the line or fence, or an acquiescence in or recognition of a
  • Hester v. Smith 72 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    115 , , 415: "The mere fact that parties owning adjoining property have cultivated lands up to a certain line, or up to a certain fence, built either by one or both, or built by one and repaired by the other, does not per se evidence an adverse possession up to the line or fence, or an acquiesence in or recognition of an ad
  • Jones v. Dyer 71 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    115 , , with reference to a fence separating adjoining properties placed there by either one or both of the owners, the following: "The mere fact that parties owning adjoining properties have cultivated land up to a certain line, or up to a certain fence built either by one or both, or built by one and repaired by the other
  • Rachal v. Metoyer 54 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    115 , ; Blanchard v. Monrose, 12 La.App.
  • Cormier v. West 52 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    115 , ; Laurent v. Laurent, 146 La.
  • Picou v. Curole 44 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
  • Selfe v. Travis 29 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1947
  • Simmons v. Miller 170 So. 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    115, 123 , , in describing the holding of land under such circumstances.
  • De Bakey v. Prater 147 So. 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
  • Blanchard v. Monrose 125 So. 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    For some time we found it difficult to understand the decision of the Supreme Court of this state in Williams vs. Bernstein, , 25 So.
  • Carr v. Geoghegan 123 So. 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    I told him if I was wrong, I would move it.” We think that the facts as to the fence and hedge in question, bring this case squarely within the doctrine announced in Williams vs. Bernstein, , 25 So.
  • Sliman v. Joseph 118 So. 776 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1928
    The cases of Bourguignon vs. Boudousquie, 6 N. S. 697; Williams vs. Bernstein, , 25 So.
  • Haas v. Guillory 5 La. App. 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    185 ; Williams vs. Bernstein, , 25 So.
  • Brown v. Andrews 1 La. App. 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    In our opinon the case of Williams vs. Bernestein, , is decisive of this question.
  • Capo v. Blanchard 1 La. App. 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
  • Blackburn v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. 80 So. 708 La. 1919
  • Russell v. Producers' Oil Co. 70 So. 92 La. 1915
    (N. S.) 701; , 25 South.