Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., 79 So. 768.
-
Marks v. Zimmerman Farms, LLC
13 So. 3d 768
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
In Re Succession of Moore
737 So. 2d 749
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
See art. 3502, official comment (c); Harang v. Golden Ranch [Land] & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Fleniken v. Allbritton
566 So. 2d 1106
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
See art. 3502, official revision comment (c); Harang v. Golden Ranch & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Brown v. Wood
451 So. 2d 569
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
See also, Stutson v. McGee, supra; Emmer v. Rector, supra; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Succession of Campbell
243 So. 2d 329
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
683 (1938); Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Trahan v. Broussard
206 So. 2d 82
La. 1968
34 , ; and Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and MacHinery Company
158 So. 2d 179
La. 1963
App., ; Sattler v. Pellichino, La.App., ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Noel v. Jumonville Pipe & Machinery Co.
148 So. 2d 891
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
“The described holding in the Sibley case has been cited approvingly in subsequent decisions of this court, including Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Company, , 79 So.
-
Stutson v. McGee
130 So. 2d 403
La. 1961
The described holding in the Sibley case has been cited approvingly in subsequent decisions of this court, including Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Company, , 79 So.
-
Stutson v. McGee
125 So. 2d 482
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
In determining tacking of possession of the vendor for the purposes of thirty year prescription, the Supreme Court in the case of Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Hadwin v. Sledge
116 So. 2d 114
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
502 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Isacks v. Deutsch
114 So. 2d 746
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
* * * * * * "The court, in its opinion on rehearing [Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Hebert v. Chargois
106 So. 2d 15
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
760 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , *20 1009, 79 So.
-
Succession of Lapene
96 So. 2d 321
La. 1957
See, Lee v. Jones, supra; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Roberson v. Green
91 So. 2d 439
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
502 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Richey v. Hill
84 So. 2d 291
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
502 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., 1918, , 79 So.
-
Finley v. Morgan
80 So. 2d 196
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
413 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Jowers v. Coats
76 So. 2d 99
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
502 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co. [ , 79 So.
-
Sattler v. Pellichino
71 So. 2d 689
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
11 , referred to the case of Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Thurmon v. Hogg
72 So. 2d 500
La. 1954
[304] “ ‘The Court pointed out that in the Harang case [Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Coats v. Lee
70 So. 2d 229
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
502 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Company, [ , 79 So.
-
Lee v. Jones
69 So. 2d 26
La. 1953
869 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Sun Oil Co. v. Tarver
52 So. 2d 437
La. 1951
This is shown by the opinion he authored on rehearing in Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
- Beam v. Dudding 43 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
-
Merritt v. Smith
35 So. 2d 817
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
502 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land Drainage Company, supra [ , 79 So.
- Ford v. Ford 34 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
-
Labarre v. Rateau
26 So. 2d 279
La. 1946
413 ; Harang, et al. v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Company, , 79 So.
-
Buckley v. Catlett
13 So. 2d 384
La. 1943
413 ; Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Company, , 79 So.
-
Tillery v. Fuller
182 So. 683
La. 1938
2, p. 91, particularly comment No. 22; and what was said on the subject in Harang v. .Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co. [ , 79 So.
-
Succession of Tyson
172 So. 772
La. 1937
See, also, Harang et al. v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
- Emmer v. Rector 143 So. 11 La. 1932
-
Thibodeaux v. Bonnabel Land Company
131 So. 833
La. 1930
Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Ducre v. Milner
126 So. 72
La. 1930
Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Ducre v. Milner
120 So. 253
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Harang vs. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
Broussard v. Broussard
8 La. App. 635
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
183 ; Harang vs. Golden Ranch Land and Drainage Co., , 79 So.
-
McCahill v. Wood
4 La. App. 621
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
502 ; Harang vs. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 South.
- Gahn v. Brown 107 So. 576 La. 1925
- Opdenwyer v. Brown 99 So. 482 La. 1924
-
Harang v. Gheens Realty Co.
98 So. 760
La. 1923
Some of the chief questions to be determined in this case were before us in the cases of Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 South.
-
Roussel v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.
93 So. 758
La. 1922
Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 South.
-
Bendernagel v. Foret
81 So. 869
La. 1919
Plaintiffs’ title is the same that was recognized in favor of two of them for an adjacent tract of land, in the suit of Dominique Harang et al. v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 South.
-
Harang v. Bowie Lumber Co.
81 So. 769
La. 1919
The title relied upon by the plaintiffs is the same that was recognized in favor of two of them as plaintiffs in the suit of Dominique Harang et al. v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., , 79 South.