Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Russell v. Producers' Oil Co., 78 So. 473.

16 citing documents.

Andermann v. Rouillier 271 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Lillian E. Landaiche Roy v. Sheriff Bill Belt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Russell v. Producers’ Oil Co. (La.1918), So.
Roy v. Belt 868 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Russell v. Producers' Oil Co. (1918), , 78 So.
Vallee v. Richardson 331 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
215 , (1918): "It is important that the character of the present action be definitely ascertained and fixed in order to place the burden of proof where it properly belongs.
Brooks v. Jones 329 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Russell v. Producers’ Oil Company, , 78 So.
Engstrom's of Alexandria, Inc. v. Vaughn 138 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
215 , , where we affirmed the judgment of the lower court refusing to grant Davis the exemption claimed by him as surviving spouse for the reason that he had no one dependent upon him, saying that in the Davis case ‘unlike the present case [White case] the debt against which the exemption was urged in that case [Davis case]
McMichael v. Williams 111 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Russell v. Producers’ Oil Co., , 78 So.
Beene v. Pardue 79 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
We appreciate, as did our learned and distinguished brother of the district court, the many difficulties involved in such controversies, , 78 So.
Collins v. Sun Oil Co. 68 So. 2d 184 La. 1953
Savage v. Packard 50 So. 2d 298 La. 1950
It apparently based its decision on the case of Russell v. Producers’ Oil Company, , 78 So.
Wood v. Mason 3 So. 2d 256 La. 1941
215 , , where we affirmed the judgment of the lower court refusing to grant Davis the exemption claimed by him as surviving spouse for the reason that he had no one dependent upon him, saying that in the Davis case “unlike the present case [White case] the debt against which the exemption was urged in that case [Davis case]
Wood v. Mason 3 So. 2d 256 La. 1941
215 , , where we affirmed the judgment of the lower court refusing to grant Davis the exemption claimed by him as surviving spouse for the reason that he had no one dependent upon him, saying that in the Davis case "unlike the present case [White case] the debt against which the exemption was urged in that case [Davis case]
Dufrene v. Bernstein 181 So. 859 La. 1938
Russell et al. v. Producers’ Oil Co., , 78 So.
Succession of White 127 So. 883 La. 1930
215 , ; Whyte v. Grant, 142 La.
Etchison v. Richardson Oil Co. 6 La. App. 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
rties as an action of boundary, and neither took any exceptions to the judgment which did not fix the bounds or order a survey of the property, and we must assume that the action was considered by the parties as in the nature of a petitory action, in which the plaintiff carried the burden of proof to establish the correct location of the line between the properties (Russell vs. Producers Oil Co., , 78 South.
Russell v. Producers' Oil Co. 83 So. 773 La. 1920