Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Latiolais v. Breaux, 98 So. 620.
- Potts v. Spatafora 340 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
- Johnson v. Domino 280 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
- Woods v. Stoma 242 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
-
Burglass v. Finance Funds Group, Inc.
252 So. 2d 498
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Or if unquestioned until after the redemptive period, after which the borrower has ignorantly ceded possession to the lender as by thereafter agreeing to lease, that cession will result in construing the contract as a sale (from its inception?); , 98 So.
- Sealy Realty Co. v. Brangato 222 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
-
LeBoeuf v. Malbrough
188 So. 2d 196
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
429, 430 , the court stated: ‘ , 98 So.
- Gross v. Brooks 130 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
-
Jackson v. Golson
111 So. 2d 876
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
•This principle was unequivocally declared *879 in what is uniformly regarded as the leading case on this issue, , 98 So.
- Williams v. Robinson 98 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
- Jackson v. Golson 91 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
- Lerner Shops of Louisiana, Inc. v. Reeves 73 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
- Bechard v. St. Romain 35 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1948
- Akard v. Hutton 200 So. 137 La. 1941
- Baker v. Patton 186 So. 336 La. 1939
- Bell v. Leiendecker 174 So. 89 La. 1937
- Foster v. Carnes 147 So. 697 La. 1933
- Beard v. Nunn 133 So. 429 La. 1931
-
Waller v. Dawson
111 So. 170
La. 1927
of redemption — vente a l-emere — passes title to the purchaser, but to this end it is necessary that the vendee should give a real and reasonably adequate consideration, and take actual possession of the property, or else that such explanar tion be forthcoming-, when required, of the continued possession of the vendor as excludes the idea of his still existing ownership.” , 98 So.
- Latham v. Glasscock 108 So. 100 La. 1926
- Succession of Hawthorne 104 So. 481 La. 1925