DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Slattery v. Heilperin, 34 So. 139.

23 citing documents.

  • JH Jenkins Contractors, Inc. v. Farriel 246 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    155 ; Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Roy v. Elmer 153 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    145 , as follows : “ ‘In a petitory action for a tract of land, if the plaintiff shows a title translative of property, and the defendant shows none, the plaintiff will recover.’ “And in Slattery et al. v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Heirs of Boagni v. Thornton 132 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    253 ; Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Ewald v. Hodges 120 So. 2d 465 La. 1960
    We would likewise deprive the tax sale of its inherent legal presumption of validity created in its favor by article 233 of the Constitution of 1898 [LSA-Const.], then in force, providing that ‘All deeds of sale made, or that may be made, by the collectors of taxes, shall be received by courts in evidence as prima facie valid sales.’ “In Slattery et al. vs. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Cortinas v. Murray 70 So. 2d 589 La. 1954
    There, as here, the appellants relied on the cases of Slattery v. Heilperin & *696 Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Goodwill v. Smith 29 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Stone v. Kimball's Heirs 5 So. 2d 758 La. 1942
    In support of counsel’s contention as relates to this particular point, he cites Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Ward v. South Coast Corporation 3 So. 2d 689 La. 1941
  • Hutton v. Adkins 186 So. 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    145 , as follows : “In a petitory action for a tract of land, if the plaintiff shows a title translative of property, and the defendant shows none, the plaintiff will recover.” And in Slattery et al. v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Federal Land Bank v. Scallan 154 So. 632 La. 1934
    94 , , Little River Lbr.
  • Roberts v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co. 151 So. 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 So.
  • Carrere v. City of New Orleans 111 So. 393 La. 1926
    95 , ; Cordill v. Quaker Realty Co., 130 La.
  • McBroom v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. 2 La. App. 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Slattery vs. Heilperin, , 34 South.
  • Nebraska-Tensas Co. v. Moritz 102 So. 195 La. 1924
    94 , , there was no proof as to whether tbe tax collector at tbe sale offered the least quantity of land before proceeding to offer the whole, and tbe tax deed was silent as to such fact, and tbe court said: “This court, in Land Co. v. Sholars, 105 La.
  • Griffing v. Taft 91 So. 832 La. 1922
  • Board of Directors of Public Schools v. New Orleans Land Co. 70 So. 27 La. 1915
    It is now fully settled that: “ ‘No estoppel results against the state by reason of the fact that the tax assessor erroneously assessed the land to an individual and the tax collector sold it for nonpayment of taxes resulting from such assessment.’ , 34 South.
  • City of New Orleans v. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co. 66 So. 237 La. 1914
  • Quaker Realty Co. v. Purcell 64 So. 894 La. 1914
    Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 South.
  • Leader Realty Co. v. Lakeview Land Co. 63 So. 253 La. 1913
    It is now fully settled that: “No estoppel results against the state by reason of the fact that the tax assessor erroneously assessed the land to an individual and the tax collector sold it for nonpayment of taxes resulting from such assessment.” , 34 South.
  • Cordill v. Quaker Realty Co. 58 So. 819 La. 1912
    In Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 South.
  • Slattery v. Glassell 42 So. 135 La. 1906
    MONROE, J. This is a sequel of the suits of Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 South.
  • Slattery v. Kellum 38 So. 170 La. 1905
    Slattery v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 South.
  • Boagni v. Pacific Imp. Co. 36 So. 129 La. 1904
    Slattery et al. v. Heilperin & Leonard, , 34 South.