Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cook v. Martin, 178 So. 881.

22 citing documents.

Daniel J. Saloom, Et Al. v. State Of Louisiana, Department Of Transportation And Development La. 2022
3 For similar applications , see Cook v. Martin , 178 So.
Bostick v. Foret 351 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Schutten v. Orleans Parish Levee District 320 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Montgomery v. Breaux 297 So. 2d 185 La. 1974
Wilturner v. Duhon 284 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Deselle v. Bonnette 251 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Thompson v. Frazier 184 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
“[5] From this rule it follows necessarily that, when a plaintiff claims title ■to a certain described lot of ground, ■he must show that his title covers the identical lot in controversy, (citation of cases omitted).” Our Supreme Court stated again in the case of Cook et al. v. Martin et al. (1938) , 178 So.
Stevens v. Mayo 166 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1964
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Boudoin 154 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Chauvin v. LeBlanc 148 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Burt v. Valois 144 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Dupuy v. Shannon 136 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Cook v. Martin (1938), , 178 So.
Mestayer v. Cities Service Development Company 136 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Articles 3651, 3652; , 178 So.
Blair v. Arrant 130 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
In support of this contention, we are cited to the following cases: Cook v. Martin, 1938, , 178 So.
Young v. Miller 125 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Louisiana Canal Co. v. Leger 112 So. 2d 667 La. 1959
Callahan v. Authement 77 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
We have read and considered the cases of Addison v. Kirby Lumber Corp., La.App., ; , 178 So.
Albritton v. Childers 74 So. 2d 156 La. 1954
Collins v. Sun Oil Co. 68 So. 2d 184 La. 1953
Hall v. Walker 67 So. 2d 177 La. 1953
Arnett v. Marshall 28 So. 2d 665 La. 1946
Chachere v. Superior Oil Co. 187 So. 321 La. 1939
“This being a petitory action, the plaintiffs must rely on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the defendants’ title, which is not at issue until the plaintiffs have proved an apparent valid title in themselves.” , 178 So.