DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Opdenwyer v. Brown, 99 So. 482.

82 citing documents.

  • Mary O'neal v. Ronnie Newcomb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • O'Neal v. Newcomb 209 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Loutre Land and Timber Co. v. Roberts 47 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    .Article 794’s -627 , 99 So.
  • Allen v. Martino 529 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Here, defendants have failed with the burden of proof required by Civil Code article 794 , 99 So.
  • Deshotel v. Lachney 465 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Brown v. Wood 451 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Sayes v. Tassin 419 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    1st Cir. 1966); , 99 So.
  • McPherson v. Roy 390 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Fruge v. Lyons 373 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Some of the differences between obtaining prescriptive title by thirty years' possession under Civil Code Article 852, as compared with obtaining it under Civil Code Article 3499, , 99 So.
  • Fiorello v. Knecht 334 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Wellman 346 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    3 Cir. 1965), and Opdenwyer v. Brown, 155 La 617, (1924).
  • Prather v. Valien 327 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Huval v. Dupuis 302 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    App. 1 Cir. 1928), , 99 So.
  • Carpenter v. Cobb 293 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Ratcliff v. Gordon 268 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    ned in his title, he will be permitted to retain it, and his neighbor, though he have a more ancient title, will only have a right to the excess; for if one can not prescribe against his own title, he can prescribe beyond his title or for more than it calls for, provided it be by thirty years possession.” , 99 So.
  • Ledoux v. Waterbury 261 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Delatte v. Petit 252 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Bihm v. Voorhies 241 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Kilchrist 225 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Some of the differences between obtaining prescriptive title by thirty years’ possession under Civil Code Article 852, as compared with obtaining it under Civil Code Article 3499, , 99 So.
  • Harvey v. Havard 225 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Bergeron v. Overhultz 194 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Hinckley v. Francisco 189 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Branch v. Hinson 183 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Ponder v. Fussell 180 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • LaCalle v. Chapman 174 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Judge Ellis thinks that a , 99 So.
  • Stanford v. Robertson 144 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    " Some of the differences between obtaining prescriptive title by thirty years' possession under Civil Code Article 852, as compared with obtaining it under Civil Code Article 3499, , 99 So.
  • Duplantis v. Cehan 140 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Baudin v. Charrier 137 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Brashears v. Hood 137 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Catsulis 136 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Lafont v. Arabie 132 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Stutson v. McGee 130 So. 2d 403 La. 1961
    The conclusion that the existence of some kind of title is necessary to permit the “tacking” , 99 So.
  • Nelken v. Aldredge 128 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    “It is our firm conviction that public interest requires that boundaries established for more than 30 years should not be disturbed; and we think the law so provides.” , 99 So.
  • Arledge v. Gleason 113 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    444 , , on page 843, Simon, J., author of the final opinion in the Supreme Court, made these comments, which seem peculiarly appropriate to the case now before this court: “ , 99 So.
  • Travis v. Bridges 110 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
  • A. J. Hodges Industries, Inc. v. Law 106 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Before this court counsel for defendant first argues his exception of no right of action, which is based upon the contention that plaintiff’s petition has failed to make proper allegations in support of his action for the fixing of a boundary under the provisions of Article 823 of the LSA-Civil Code, , 99 So.
  • Sessum v. Hemperley 96 So. 2d 832 La. 1957
    Citing Article 852 of the LSA-Civil Code; , 99 So.
  • James v. Le Blanc 95 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Roberson v. Green 91 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    As a consequence of this finding the court sustained defendants’ plea of prescription acquirendi causa under the provisions of Article 852 , 99 So.
  • LeBlanc v. Barrios 89 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Wait v. Pearson 88 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    o estates for a period of time in excess of thirty years; that therefore under the provisions of Article 852, LSA-Civil Code, defendants were entitled to judgment fixing the boundary along this ancient fence, since “where a tract of land has been possessed under *46 visible bounds for 30 years, such visible bounds should prevail over the ideal bounds called for in the titles.” , at pages 624-625, 99 So.
  • Sessum v. Hemperley 83 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Finley v. Morgan 80 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Beene v. Pardue 79 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    ty years, of any quantity of land beyond that mentioned in his title, he will be permitted to retain it, and his neighbor, though he have a more ancient title, will only have a right to the excess; for if one can not prescribe against his own title, he can prescribe beyond his title or for more than it calls for, provided it be by thirty years possession," -626 , 99 So.
  • Dixon v. American Liberty Oil Company 77 So. 2d 533 La. 1954
  • Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. Broomfield 73 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Numerous authorities have been cited, including Opdenwyer v. Brown, App.1924, , 99 So.
  • Sattler v. Pellichino 71 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Arabie v. Terrebonne 69 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    art. 823 supra; Crow v. Braley, La.App., ; Selfe v. Travis, La.App., ; Griffin v. Mahoney, La.App., ; , 99 So.
  • Adams v. Etheredge 70 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    art. 852; Opdenwyer v. Brown, 1924, , 99 So.
  • Lirette v. Duplantis 65 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    Code reads as follows: “When two estates or lands contiguous, in cities or, in the country, have never been separated, or have never had their boundaries determined, or if the bounds, which have been formerly fixed, are no longer to be seen, each of the owners of the contiguous estates has a right to compel the other to fix the limits of their' respective properties.” , 99 So.