Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Land Development Co. v. Schulz, 124 So. 125.

28 citing documents.

LeGardeur v. Coleman 131 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
This interpretation is consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of |9“just title” in Land Development Co. of Louisiana v. Schultz [Schulz], [ ] 124 So.
Wetzel v. Khan 797 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Phillips v. Parker 483 So. 2d 972 La. 1986
Melancon v. Wood 357 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Bd. of Com'rs. Etc. v. Hunter Foundation 354 So. 2d 156 La. 1977
Board of Commissioners v. S. D. Hunter Foundation 342 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Board of Com'rs, Lafourche Basin Levee Dist. v. Elmer 268 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
Lott v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 268 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Boudoin 154 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Pitre v. Peltier 122 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Hadwin v. Sledge 116 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
935 ; Land Development Co. of Louisiana, , 124 So.
Bel v. Manuel 99 So. 2d 58 La. 1958
Bruce v. Cheramie 93 So. 2d 202 La. 1956
‘If no one could invoke successfully the prescription of 10 years who could have discovered by an examination of the public records before buying the property that the seller had no title, the plea would never be available, because no one could invoke it except one having a valid title and having therefore no need for the prescription.’ , 124 So.
Texas Company v. O'MEARA 82 So. 2d 769 La. 1955
735 ; Land Development Co. of Louisiana v. Schulz, 1929, , 124 So.
Smith v. Southern Kraft Corporation 13 So. 2d 335 La. 1943
Pierce v. Hunter 13 So. 2d 259 La. 1943
Franz v. Mohr 4 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Dupuy v. Joly 200 So. 806 La. 1941
Snelling v. Adair 199 So. 782 La. 1940
Keller v. Summers 187 So. 69 La. 1939
“If no one could invoke successfully the prescription of 10 years who could have discovered by an examination of the public records before buying the property that the seller had no title, the plea would never be available, because no one could invoke it except one having a valid title and having therefore no need for the prescription.” , 124 So.
Cherami v. Cantrelle 142 So. 150 La. 1932
9 , , 128: “A stipulation in an act of sale that the seller does not warrant the title might be regarded as an indication that the seller lacked faith in his title, but it is not an indication that the buyer lacked faith in the title.
Jackson v. Harris 137 So. 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Thompson v. Futral 136 So. 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Jackson v. Harris 136 So. 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Article 503 of the Revised Civil Code defines a bona fide possessor as one “who possesses as owner by virtue of an act [meaning a title] sufficient in terms to transfer property, the defects of which [title] he was ignorant of.” , 124 So.
Varnado v. Meyer & Neugass Co. 133 So. 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Screen v. Trainor 133 So. 359 La. 1931
Nugent v. Urania Lbr. Co. 133 So. 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Wheat v. Bayer & Thayer Hardwood Co. 131 So. 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930