Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Recker v. Dupuy, 108 So. 782.

26 citing documents.

Okpalobi v. LeBorne II, L.L.C. 106 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Constance v. Sudwischer 502 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Hines v. Dance 460 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
392 , (1926); Cook v. Morgan, 142 So.
Hubbs v. Canova 392 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Tornabene v. Zor, Inc. 188 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Lipps v. Zor, Inc. 170 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Doll v. Montgomery 58 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1952
We believe that the question of notice is first and paramount, as it was said by the Supreme Court, , 108 So.
Sanders v. Abbitt 29 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
La Plaq Realty, Inc. v. Vaughan 24 So. 2d 870 La. 1945
Weaver Bros. Realty Corporation v. Vines 23 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Alba v. Holstead 23 So. 2d 100 La. 1945
Messina v. Owens 22 So. 2d 286 La. 1945
Westwego Canal & Terminal Co. v. Pitre 196 So. 36 La. 1940
Gibbs v. Roos 178 So. 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Barthold v. Dover 153 So. 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Cook v. Morgan 142 So. 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Regina Lumber Co. v. Perkins 142 So. 785 La. 1932
Article 10, § 11, Constitution of 1921; , 108 So.
Federico v. Nunez 139 So. 18 La. 1931
Lee v. Givens 134 So. 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
628 ; citing Jones v. Curran, supra; , 108 So.
Page v. Pitts 133 So. 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Counsel for the plaintiff and appellant has cited us to the following cases in support of his contention that the tax sale attacked is null for want of notice: , 108 So.
Salsman v. Bloom 133 So. 760 La. 1931
Piernas v. La Salle Realty Co. 132 So. 516 La. 1931
Sanders v. Dantoni 7 La. App. 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Recker vs. Dupuy, , 108 South.
Sanders v. Dantoni 118 So. 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Recker vs. Dupuy, , 108 So.
Winsor v. Taylor 7 La. App. 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
582 , and Recker vs. Dupuy, , 108 So.
Hicks & Richardson Co. v. Gearreald 6 La. App. 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1927
' The defendant does not contend that notice of delinquency is not necessary, but he contends that as Roach Rogers, in whose name the property was assessed, was the record owner on January 2, 1918, *235 the notice was properly given to him, citing in support of his contention Article 233 of the Constitution of 1913 and Sections 50 and 51 of Act 170 of 1898 and the decision in Reeker vs. Dupuy, , 108 South.