Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. Jeansonne, 45 So. 367.

22 citing documents.

Calvary Tabernacle v. La. Central Bank 393 So. 2d 708 La. 1981
Gennuso v. State 339 So. 2d 335 La. 1976
Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Radalec, Inc. 126 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Aegis Insurance Co. v. Delta Fire & Casualty Co. 99 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Juneau v. Laborde 82 So. 2d 693 La. 1955
202 and Citizens’ , 45 So.
Adkins' Heirs v. Crawford, Jenkins & Booth, Ltd. 24 So. 2d 246 La. 1945
*51 287; Citizens’ , 45 So.
In Re Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. 23 So. 2d 63 La. 1945
Mayer v. Ford 12 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Urania Lumber Co. v. Powers & Critchett Lumber Co. 166 So. 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Bernard Cypress Co., supra; Citizens’ , 45 So.
Young v. International Paper Co. 155 So. 231 La. 1934
234 ; Citizens’ , 45 So.
Rhodes v. International Paper Co. 139 So. 755 La. 1932
Spyker v. International Paper Co. 138 So. 109 La. 1931
Midkiff v. Long-Bell Lumber Co. 7 La. App. 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Citizen’s Bank vs. Jeansonne, , *395 45 South.
Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co. 114 So. 654 La. 1927
Erwin v. Lee Lumber Co. 111 So. 673 La. 1927
In the case of Citizens’ , 45 So.
National Park Bank v. Concordia Land & Timber Co. 105 So. 234 La. 1925
The court therefore finds that the plaintiff had knowledge of the trespass, the subject of this litigation, for more than two years before the institution of this suit, and that the plaintiff the Concordia Land & Timber Company, upon whom, under the authority of Citizens’ ( 45 So.
Liles v. Barnhart 93 So. 490 La. 1922
See, also, Citizens’ , 45 South.
Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co. 82 So. 841 La. 1918
Louisiana Stave Co. v. South Arkansas Lumber Co. 65 So. 226 La. 1914
See Act 33 of 1902, p. 41; , 45 South.
Davis v. Ruddock Orleans Cypress Co. 62 So. 114 La. 1912
In Citizens’ , 45 South.
Poirier v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co. 54 So. 292 La. 1911
fficient information to lead him to a fact, he shall be deemed conversant of it.” And in a case involving the application of this same Act 33 of 1902, now invoked by plaintiffs, this court cited this case of Succession of Dauphin with approval, and held that the burden was on plaintiff “to prove the date that.knowledge of the alleged trespass was brought home to him.” Citizens’ , 45 South.
Antrim Lumber Co. v. S. H. Bolinger & Co. 46 So. 337 La. 1908