Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Poirier v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co., 54 So. 292.

17 citing documents.

Lewis v. Sohio Petroleum Co. 528 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Distinguished Kaiser Aluminum Exploration Co. v. Thompson 523 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Defendant-appellees contend that actual notice to Edmond Ewell constitutes actual notice to the unnoticed plaintiffs, , 54 So.
Vial v. South Central Bell Telephone 423 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Aegis Insurance Co. v. Delta Fire & Casualty Co. 99 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
* * * (Emphasis added) * * * * * * * * * "The plaintiffs being charged with constructive notice of the knowledge of their agent Doiron, the Supreme Court of this State had under consideration a plea of prescription under Civil Code, Article 3537, as amended by Act 33 of 1902, , 54 So.
Reymond v. Sumrall 67 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Maxfield v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 65 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
In making this holding, the court said “The law favors the vigilant, and can not extend relief to a party, who, after seeing trespass or damage committed on his premises, allows the prescriptible period to elapse before asserting his rights for recoupment, if any he has.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court, , 54 So.
Mayer v. Ford 12 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
The plaintiffs being charged with constructive notice of the knowledge of their agent Doiron, the Supreme Court of this State had under consideration a plea of prescription under Civil Code, Article 3537, as amended by Act 33 of 1902, , 942, 54 So.
Urania Lumber Co. v. Powers & Critchett Lumber Co. 166 So. 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Spyker v. International Paper Co. 138 So. 109 La. 1931
Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co. 114 So. 654 La. 1927
Tircuit v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co. 110 So. 489 La. 1926
PAUL, J. This case is the afiermath of the case of Josephine Poirier et al. v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co. (this same defendant), reported in , 54 So.
National Park Bank v. Concordia Land & Timber Co. 105 So. 234 La. 1925
Satcher v. Radesich 96 So. 35 La. 1923
444 ; , 54 South 292 , it was held that the claim of an owner in indivisión against his co-owner, for the value of his interest in timber cut by the latter from the land held in common, is not barred by the prescription of one year.
Liles v. Barnhart 93 So. 490 La. 1922
Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co. 82 So. 841 La. 1918
Davis v. Ruddock Orleans Cypress Co. 62 So. 114 La. 1912
Kinder v. Scharff 55 So. 769 La. 1911