Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Henly v. Kask, 11 So. 2d 230.

20 citing documents.

McPherson v. Roy 390 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Fruge v. Lyons 373 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
482 ; Mills v. Butler, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Henly v. Kask, La.App.Orl., .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Kilchrist 225 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
482 ; Mills v. Butler, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Henly v. Kask, La.App.Orl., .
Ponder v. Fussell 180 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Stanford v. Robertson 144 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
482 ; Mills v. Butler, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Henly v. Kask, La.App.Orl., .
Mills v. Butler 131 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
of land beyond that mentioned in his title, he will be permitted to retain it, and his neighbor, though he have a more ancient title, will only have a right to the excess; for if one can not prescribe against his own title, he can prescribe beyond his title or for more than it calls for, provided it be by thirty years possession.” This article was discussed in the case of Henly v. Kask, La.App., , 234 and the court there gave an exhaustive review of the jurisprudence on this matter and concluded
Nelken v. Aldredge 128 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
In Henly v. Kask, La.App., , that court stated: “It seems clear to us, as a result of these decisions, that the now well-established rule is that where there is a visible boundary, which has been in existence for thirty years or more, and the defendant in a boundary action, or his predecessors in title have, in addition to the land describ
Wait v. Pearson 88 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
5: “It is our firm conviction that the public interest requires that boundaries established for more than 30 years should not be disturbed; and we think the law so provides.” See also Duplantis v. Locascio, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Tate v. Cutrer, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Crow v. Braley, La.App., ; Picou v. Curole, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Henly v. Kask, La.App., ; Latiolais v. Robert, La.App., 1 Cir., ; De Bakey v. Prater, La.App., 1 Cir., 147 So.
Sessum v. Hemperley 83 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
482 ; Henly v. Kask, La.App., .
Glynn v. Normand 79 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
See Henly v. Kask, La.App., and cases cited therein.
Finley v. Morgan 80 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Defendant cites and relies upon the cases of Thompson’s Succession v. Cyprian, La.App., ; Latiolais v. Robert, La.App., ; Henly v. Kask, La.App., ; Vicknair v. Langridge, La.App., , and Duplantis v. Locascio, La.App., .
Beene v. Pardue 79 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
734 ; Henly v. Kask, La.App., ; Crow v. Brakey, La.App., ; Kobler v. Koch, La.App., , together with authorities from other jurisdictions.
Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. Broomfield 73 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
v. Kask, La.App.1942, ; Tate v. Cutrer, La.App.1951, ; Allen v. Butler, La.App.1952, , but we do not find these decisions helpful.
Sattler v. Pellichino 71 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Henly v. Kask, La.App., , gives an exhaustive review of the jurisprudence on the question and sums up the requirements in the following language: "It seems clear to us, as a result of these decisions, that the now well-established rule is that where there is a visible boundary, which has been in existence for thirty years or more, and t
Arabie v. Terrebonne 69 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
App., ; Henly v. Kask, La.App., ; Broussard v. Winn, La.App., .
Adams v. Etheredge 70 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
1942, 236 ; Cook v. Floyd, La.App.
Vicknair v. Langridge 57 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
In Henly v. Kask, La.App., , this court considered this question, discussing various cases in which it had been previously considered and said: “It seems clear to us, as a result of these decisions, that the now well-established rule is that where there is a visible boundary, which has been in existence for thirty years or more, and the de
Tate v. Cutrer 53 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
In the case of Henly v. Kask, reported in La.App., , the Orleans Court of Appeal, with Judge Janvier as its organ, reviewed the jurisprudence as it affects a plea of 30 years prescription to a boundary suit under Article 852 of the Revised Civil Code.
Crow v. Braley 47 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
482 ; Latiolais v. Robert, La.App., ; Henly v. Kask, La.App., ; Broussard v. Winn, La.App., .
Conrad v. Roussell 37 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948