Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Siegel v. Helis, 172 So. 768.

37 citing documents.

Todd v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources 474 So. 2d 430 La. 1985
621, 639 , (1943); , 172 So.
Todd v. State Through Dept. of Natural Res. 456 So. 2d 1340 La. 1984
621, 639 , (1943); , 172 So.
Chauvin v. Kirchhoff 194 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Phillips v. West 144 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Foscue v. Mitchell, supra; , 172 So.
Morgan City Co. v. Guarisco 116 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Louisiana Canal Co. v. Leger 112 So. 2d 667 La. 1959
The nature of a jactitation suit has been the subject of many adjudications, , 172 So.
Daigle v. Pan American Production Co. 108 So. 2d 516 La. 1958
Bascus v. City of Shreveport 98 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Russ v. Stephens 90 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Reine v. Frederick 79 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Dixon v. American Liberty Oil Company 77 So. 2d 533 La. 1954
Wilson v. California Co. 75 So. 2d 224 La. 1954
Scheller v. Goode 69 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Ware v. Baucum 59 So. 2d 182 La. 1952
On the subject of the jactitation action, such as we are here considering, , 172 So.
Collier v. Marks 57 So. 2d 43 La. 1952
Collier v. Marks 57 So. 2d 43 La. 1952
Finch v. Schexnayder 53 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
The jurisprudence on that question of jactitation or slander of title was thoroughly reviewed by the Supreme Court of this state through Justice •Rogers, in the case entitled, , 172 So.
Fried v. Edmiston 40 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1949
Green v. George 37 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
However, no issue of title was presented and there is no proof in the record that defendants are successors in title to the vendee named in the 1907 deed to W. P. Lucky, , 172 So.
Louisiana-Delta Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Johnson 19 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1944
International Paper Co. v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co. 12 So. 2d 659 La. 1943
Realty Operators, Inc. v. State Mineral Board 12 So. 2d 198 La. 1942
Haas v. Cerami 10 So. 2d 61 La. 1942
Whalen v. Davis 9 So. 2d 424 La. 1942
Canada v. Frost Lumber Industries 9 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Rawlings v. Stokes 193 So. 589 La. 1940
Blum v. Gordon 193 So. 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Siegel v. Helis, *496 , 172 So.
City of Shreveport v. Kahn 193 So. 461 La. 1939
Allison v. Maroun 190 So. 408 La. 1939
ndant in an action for slander of title fails or refuses to challenge the plaintiff’s title, and if the plaintiff proves that he is in the actual possession of the property, the only appropriate judgment to be rendered is one allowing the defendant a fixed time in which to bring a petitory action against the plaintiff, in default of which the plaintiff’s title is to be confirmed, , 172 So.
Sherburne v. Iberville Land Co. 190 So. 227 La. 1939
Ludeau v. Jacob 189 So. 570 La. 1939
Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Burns 186 So. 85 La. 1939
Foscue v. Mitchell 182 So. 740 La. 1938
Rhodes v. Miller 179 So. 430 La. 1938
Rudd v. Land Co. 177 So. 583 La. 1937
Riley v. Kaempfer 175 So. 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
r made, and the defendant does not assert title in himself, the proper judgment is one ordering the slanderer to institute suit against the possessor, within a reasonable time fixed by the court, in revindication of his rights, and in default of such suit being instituted within the time designated, , 172 So.
Rudd v. Land Co. 172 So. 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
recently decided by the Supreme Court.