Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Leader Realty Co. v. Taylor, 84 So. 648.
- Armstrong v. Armstrong 493 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
- City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Canal, Inc. 412 So. 2d 975 La. 1982
- Plaisance v. Collins 365 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
- William T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Cook 322 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
- Ryder v. Lacour 322 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
-
Pure Oil Company v. Skinner
284 So. 2d 608
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
The Simontons, in support of their contention that the deed, whereby they originally acquired the one and one-half acres, was sufficient to form the basis of a plea of ten-year prescription because the property could have easily been identified and located, , 84 So.
- Theriot v. LA-TERRE COMPANY 256 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Jones v. Pringle 226 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
-
Womack v. Walsh
213 So. 2d 44
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
In the case of Leader Realty Co. v. Taylor (1920) , 84 So.
- Zeringue v. Blouin 192 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
- Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Boudoin 154 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
- Succession of Seals 150 So. 2d 13 La. 1963
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Littleton 125 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
-
Hadwin v. Sledge
116 So. 2d 114
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
The court followed the interpretation of the word "boundaries," as used in the aforesaid article, , 84 So.
- Scott v. Blanton 115 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
- Sabine Lumber Co. v. Garcia 110 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
- Bruce v. Cheramie 93 So. 2d 202 La. 1956
-
Texas Company v. O'MEARA
82 So. 2d 769
La. 1955
“Even if it is assumed, for defendants’ benefit, that James M. Bollinger never actually possessed the lower portion of lot 6 and that the Lees never divested themselves of title to all of lot 6, the above argument can gain defendants nothing, for an affirmative answer to defendants’ question is provided by the Louisiana jurisprudence, in the rule of Leader Realty Co. v. Taylor, 1920, , 84 So.
- Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co. 76 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
-
Sattler v. Pellichino
71 So. 2d 689
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
402 , , in touching upon the meaning of "enclosures" stated: " , 84 So.
- Hill v. Richey 59 So. 2d 434 La. 1952
- Bonnabel v. Police Jury 44 So. 2d 872 La. 1950
-
Haas v. Dezauche
37 So. 2d 441
La. 1948
It was pointed out recently in two decisions handed down by this Court, , 84 So.
-
Labarre v. Rateau
26 So. 2d 279
La. 1946
In the Leader Realty Company Case [ , 84 So.
- Persigo v. Johnson Co. 18 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1944
- Smith v. Southern Kraft Corporation 13 So. 2d 335 La. 1943
- Pierce v. Hunter 13 So. 2d 259 La. 1943
- Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ellerbe 6 So. 2d 556 La. 1942
- Snelling v. Adair 199 So. 782 La. 1940
- Long v. Chailan 199 So. 222 La. 1940
- Little v. Barbe 198 So. 368 La. 1940
- Hunter v. Forrest 197 So. 649 La. 1940
- Harrill v. Pitts 193 So. 562 La. 1940
- Continental Land & Fur Co. v. Lacoste 188 So. 700 La. 1939
- Feazel v. Peek 179 So. 35 La. 1938
- Bond v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 160 So. 406 La. 1935
- Buckley v. Dumond 156 So. 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
- Passera v. City of New Orleans 118 So. 887 La. 1928
- Lewis v. Standard Oil Co. 98 So. 662 La. 1923
- Eivers' Heirs v. Rankin's Heirs 90 So. 419 La. 1921