DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ashley Co. v. Bradford, 33 So. 634.

33 citing documents.

  • Smitko v. Gulf South Shrimp, Inc. 77 So. 3d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Verret v. Norwood 311 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    322 , (1958); Ashley Company, , 33 So.
  • Mayo v. Stoessell 277 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Esso Standard Oil Company v. Jordan 92 So. 2d 377 La. 1956
  • Robinson v. Mafrige 86 So. 2d 72 La. 1956
    Ashley Co., Limited, v. Bradford, , 33 So.
  • Stevens v. Johnson 81 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Steele v. Montgomery 72 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Cortinas v. Murray 70 So. 2d 589 La. 1954
  • Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works 53 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Weaver Bros. Realty Corporation v. Vines 23 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    See: Ashley Company, Ltd., v. Bradford et al., , 33 So.
  • Le Blanc v. Trahan 20 So. 2d 745 La. 1945
  • Stone v. Kimball's Heirs 5 So. 2d 758 La. 1942
    His ruling is supported by the following cases: Ashley Co., Ltd., v. Bradford, , 33 So.
  • Egle v. Constantin 5 So. 2d 281 La. 1941
  • Morris v. Hankins 188 So. 155 La. 1939
  • Tillery v. Fuller 182 So. 683 La. 1938
  • Hudson v. Whitworth 137 So. 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    (3) Those who buy property which is tangibly and corporeally in the possession of the tax debtor, but who content themselves with merely accepting and recording the tax collector’s title, making no effort to dispossess the original owner.” In discussing the first and second of these three classes of tax purchasers, , 33 So.
  • Close v. Rowan 130 So. 350 La. 1930
    644 , , quoted approvingly in Pierson v. Castell Land & Harbor Co., supra, this court, in interpreting article 233 of the Constitution of 189S, said : “By its enactment they [referring to the members of the convention] intended to give warning to owners of property that they must look after and keep up with the sam
  • Byrne v. Commercial Security Co. 7 La. App. 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    89 ; Ashley Co. vs. Bradford, , 33 South.
  • Ryals v. Todd 116 So. 395 La. 1927
    from the opinion in the Lisso Case: “The law makes specific provision with respect to the time and manner in which assessments may be corrected, whether by cancellation, reduction, or increase, and this court has on more that one occasion found itself unable to afford relief to complaining taxpayers because of their failure to comply with those provisions.” , 33 So.
  • Wilson v. Ferguson 6 La. App. 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    Ashley Co. vs. Bradford, , 33 South.
  • Blanchard v. Estate of Hy Garland 6 La. App. 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    Ashley vs. Bradford, , 33 South.
  • Marque v. Kolwe 5 La. App. 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    642 , ; Simoneaux vs. White Castle Lumber & Shingle Co., 112 La.
  • Pierson v. Castell Land & Harbor Co. 105 So. 274 La. 1925
    655 , ), said with respect to article 233 of the Constitution: "By its enactment they [the members of the convention] intended to give warning to owners of property that they must look after and keep up with the same in respect to assessment for taxes and payment of taxes, and that if they failed to do so and the property a
  • Manade v. Brown 84 So. 170 La. 1920
    See Ashley Co., Ltd., v. Bradford et al., , 33 South.
  • Hirst v. Xeter Realty, Ltd. 70 So. 339 La. 1915
  • Donaldson v. Tebault 7 Teiss. 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1910
    Particular reference is made to the case of Ashley vs. Brandford, , and Lacroix, Administrator, vs. Frederick C. Meyers, et al., recently decided by us, in both of which cases the titles of the claimants who acquired from the original owner were rejected, notwithstanding that they acquired when the records show no alienation in the owner’s name, but simply tax sales of the property
  • Head v. Howcott Land Co. 44 So. 117 La. 1907
  • Lavendan v. Forstall 4 Teiss. 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1907
    Ashby vs. Bradford ; Slattery vs. Kellerin 114 La.
  • Richard v. Perrodin 40 So. 789 La. 1906
  • Terry v. Heisen 40 So. 461 La. 1906
  • Gomez v. Wilde 1 Teiss. 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1904
  • Howcott v. Simeon 1 Teiss. 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1903
    Hence the constitutional prescription against the right to assail the title must prevail, under the ruling in Ashley Co. vs. Bradford, , unless the arguments adduced are potent against this result.
  • Pitre v. Schleslinger 34 So. 425 La. 1903